C-008 - Conduct Authority Decision 

One evening after his shift, the Appellant sent an email to his watch stating that a $100 was taken from his wallet in his locker in the detachment and asking the person who may have taken the money to talk to him. An internal investigation ensued to discover the culprit. During the investigation, the Appellant had discussions with his superior officers and gave three formal statements which contained discrepancies. The discussions and statements led his superiors to doubt the sincerity of the theft complaint and a Code of Conduct investigation was initiated against the Appellant for having made a false statement or report under subsection 45(c) of the RCMP Code of Conduct in force prior to November 28, 2014. Subsection 45(c) was the predecessor to section 8.1 of the current RCMP Code of Conduct.

The Notice of conduct meeting and the Record of Decision referenced the same two allegations against the Appellant for misleading superiors. However the allegations were brought under section 7 of the RCMP Code of Conduct (discreditable 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 conduct measures, including ineligibility for promotion for a year, a forfeiture of five days pay and a forfeiture of five days of annual leave.

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.

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. Moreover, the Respondent provided no analysis of whether the Appellant's conduct was discreditable. He provided no roadmap as to his evaluation of the evidence against the alleged Code of Conduct violations or as to whether the test for discreditable conduct was considered and applied. 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 recommended that the Commissioner find that there is insufficient clear and consistent evidence that allegation #1 was established. However, there is sufficient evidence to find that the Appellant made a false and misleading statement to Sgt. B, the subject matter of allegation #2.

As the Force brought the allegations under section 7 of the Code of Conduct, the ERC found that the Force was required to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant not only made a false and misleading statement but also that the Appellant thereby engaged in discreditable conduct. The ERC found that the Respondent failed to turn his mind to the test for discreditable conduct. Further, there was no evidence of discreditable conduct on the record. The ERC found that allegation 2 was not, therefore, established on the balance of probabilities under section 7 of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

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 not established on a balance of probabilities under section 7 of the Code of Conduct.

The ERC further recommended to the Commissioner that he allow the appeal in respect of the conduct measures imposed.

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 discreditable conduct, contrary to section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, were established. He also appeals the financial penalties administered on those contraventions under section 4(1). The appeal is allowed on the Allegations due to material and determinable errors. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator was critical of the drafting of one set of particulars for both Allegations and of their lack of precision. On Allegation #1 the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC that the evidence failed to support a finding of a false or misleading statement made to Sgt. C. That Allegation falls on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to prove the alleged acts on a balance of probabilities. On Allegation #2, the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC that the evidence proved that the Appellant had made a misleading statement to Sgt. B however; in disagreement with the ERC, she found that a reasonable person would find the behaviour would likely bring discredit on the Force. As a result, Allegation #2 was established. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator also allowed the appeal of the conduct measures on the basis that it was excessive and replaced it with a forfeiture of three days' pay and a direction to complete an online ethics course and a direction to review Code of Conduct policy.