C-007 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant initiated two discussions with a Superintendent. During the first discussion, the Appellant raised concerns about the allegedly disrespectful way in which an Inspector treated him at an earlier meeting. The Superintendent spoke to the Inspector and a Staff Sergeant who also attended the earlier meeting. Both members denied the Appellant's account of what occurred at the meeting. During the second discussion later that day, the Superintendent understood the Appellant to say that he and the Inspector had resolved matters. When the Superintendent asked the Inspector to confirm this information, the Inspector stated that it was not true.

Two allegations were made against the Appellant for "lying to a supervisor", contrary to section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. Following a Conduct Meeting, the Respondent issued a decision. It recited the allegations and their particulars, referenced the receipt of an investigation report and stated:

The decision also contained a list of aggravating and mitigating factors and set out five conduct measures, including a forfeiture of 10 days' pay and a forfeiture of annual leave. Subsequently, the forfeiture of annual leave was retracted and the decision revised.

The Appellant appealed both the finding on the allegations and the conduct measures imposed. He submitted the allegations were unfounded and disputed the aggravating factors cited. In support of his appeal, he filed a page of his notes which pre-dated the Respondent's decision.

The ERC dealt with a number of preliminary issues, including the removal of a conduct measure and the admissibility of the Appellant's notes on appeal. The ERC noted that the process through which a conduct measure is rescinded or revised mid-appeal should be clearly documented in the record to ensure the amendment process complies with applicable requirements and is transparent. The ERC determined the Appellant's notes were inadmissible. They were not supplied to the Respondent even though the notes predated his decision and the Appellant provided no rationale as to why they were filed for the first time on appeal.

With respect to the merits of the appeal, the ERC found that the Respondent provided no reasons for his decision, contrary to the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Conduct), the Force's Conduct Policy and the common law. The Respondent made no factual findings. He did not refer to any evidence in making his finding. He failed to address any of the Appellant's submissions. This gave the Appellant no indication that he was heard. Moreover, the Respondent provided no roadmap as to his evaluation of the evidence against the alleged Code of Conduct violations or as to why or how he arrived at his decision. Therefore, the Commissioner of the RCMP is unable to assess whether or not the Respondent's decision falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

In exercising his authority to render the finding that, in his opinion, the Respondent should have made, the ERC concluded that the Commissioner may find that the clear and consistent evidence of the Superintendent, Inspector and Staff Sergeant supports a finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant breached section 8.1 the Code of Conduct by giving a superior inaccurate accounts of another member's actions.

The ERC reviewed the conduct measures imposed. The Respondent neither explained the aggravating factors he relied upon, some of which were clearly irrelevant, nor related them to the case at hand. Moreover, his decision provided no basis as to why he ordered a forfeiture of 10 days of the Appellant's pay. As the Respondent gave no reasons in support of his imposition of a forfeiture of 10 days of pay and committed material errors in his consideration of relevant aggravating circumstances, his decision regarding conduct measures is unreasonable and warrants the Commissioner's intervention. The ERC provided a framework for the consideration of conduct measures regarding forfeiture of pay. Relying on the RCMP Conduct Measures Guide and prior RCMP cases, the ERC found that a forfeiture of 10 days of pay was a disproportionate conduct measure in this case.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the appeal of the Respondent's finding that the allegations were established due to the Respondent's failure to provide reasons for his decision. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner make a finding, with reasons, that the allegations are established on a balance of probabilities and that the Appellant provided inaccurate accounts of the actions of another employee contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner that he allow the appeal in respect of the conduct measure imposed of a forfeiture of ten days of the Appellant's pay and that he impose a global conduct measure in respect of Allegations #1 and #2 of forfeiture of pay of 3 to 7 days, within the high end of the Mitigated range and the low end of the Normal range set forth in the RCMP Conduct Measures Guide. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner confirm the remaining conduct measures imposed by the Respondent in the revised Record of Decision.

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 two allegations of false, misleading or inaccurate statements to a superior contrary to section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, were established. He also appeals the financial penalties administered on those contraventions. The appeal on the Allegations and the conduct measures are allowed due to material and determinable errors. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC that the Allegations were nonetheless established. She substituted the financial penalty of ten (10) days' pay with a global conduct measure of six (6) days' pay for both Allegations.