C-010 - Conduct Authority Decision 

The Appellant was a Police Service Dog (PSD) handler and a Corporal. He faced two allegations stemming from events that occurred in the early hours of October 2, 2014 while the Appellant was on call.

At approximately 12:15 a.m., employees at a McDonald's drive-through window noticed that a male driver had fallen asleep behind the wheel of his pick-up truck. They roused the driver and concluded he was impaired. One employee called the local police. While she was on the phone providing the pick-up truck's license plate number, the driver pulled away, ran a stop sign and a red light. The local police determined that the license plate was registered to the Appellant. They responded to the call at 3:00 a.m. by attending the Appellant's residence. They found the suspect vehicle with snow on it. There was no indication that it had recently moved. There was no answer at the residence. As they had lost continuity of the pick-up truck and the driver, the local police concluded their investigation and left the residence.

Meanwhile, at 12:43 a.m., another police service contacted the RCMP Operational Call Centre (OCC) to request PSD assistance. As the OCC could not reach the Appellant on his cell phone numbers, the OCC asked another RCMP member to attend the Appellant's residence to try to locate him. At 2:04 a.m., the member advised the OCC that there was no answer at the residence. The other police service cancelled their PSD request. However, the RCMP duty sergeant was concerned for the Appellant's well-being and asked the member to return to the Appellant's house. At approximately 4:30 a.m., there was no answer. The duty sergeant advised the member to enter the residence and the member notified the local police that he would be doing so. At approximately 4:50 a.m., the RCMP member and three local police officers rang the doorbell and banged on the door. When the Appellant answered the door, the officers observed that he was clearly intoxicated and unfit for duty.

The Appellant was alleged to have engaged in discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct by operating his private motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol or other substances. He was also alleged to have contravened section 4.3 of the Code of Conduct by consuming alcohol while on call and in such a quantity as to render himself unfit for duty.

The Respondent Conduct Authority found that both allegations were established. She imposed a forfeiture of 10 days' pay for Allegation #1, a forfeiture of 4 days' pay for Allegation #2, and for both contraventions, a reprimand, a direction to undergo medical treatment, a one-year demotion to the rank of Constable, and a transfer to another city. The Appellant challenged the Respondent's findings and the conduct measures imposed.

The ERC found that two of the Appellant's grounds of appeal had merit. First, the ERC agreed that one of the particulars in Allegation #1 - that the pick-up truck's hood was warm when the police attended the Appellant's residence - was contrary to the evidence in the record. The ERC found that the Respondent's tacit reliance on this material fact or particular, which was not supported by the evidence, was clearly unreasonable and contributed to making the Respondent's decision unreasonable.

Second, the ERC found that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for her decision. The Record of Decision contained declarations that the allegations were established but the declarations were devoid of any supporting rationale or explanation and were based on circumstances that were in dispute or unsupported by the evidence. The Respondent made no findings of fact, made no reference to any of the evidence in the Investigation Report and provided no basis upon which to understand why or how she arrived at her decision. The failure to provide reasons contravened section 8 of the Commissioner Standings Orders (Conduct) and section 9.2.1.14 of the Conduct Policy, constituted a breach of procedural fairness and rendered the Respondent's decision clearly unreasonable.

The ERC agreed that the Respondent made three errors in imposing the conduct measures. First, the Respondent failed to consider the Appellant's long and positive work history as a mitigating factor. Second, in her discussion of mitigating factors, the Respondent failed to explain how a transfer to another city would facilitate the Appellant's return to work and any treatment that may be ordered by the Health Services Officer. Finally, the Respondent failed generally to justify the one-year demotion and the transfer. Both are serious conduct measures.

Due to the Respondent's failure to provide reasons for her findings and the conduct measures imposed, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the appeal. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner find that Allegation #1 is not established but that Allegation #2 is established. With respect to conduct measures, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner:

1. rescind the forfeiture of 10 days' pay imposed for Allegation #1 and reimburse the Appellant for the amount forfeited;
2. confirm the forfeiture of 4 days' pay imposed for Allegation #2;
3. confirm the written reprimand and the direction that the Appellant undergo medical treatment; and
4. rescind both the transfer to another city and the one-year demotion and reimburse the Appellant for all salary forfeited due to the demotion.

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 against him contrary to sections 7.1 and 4.3 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, were established. He also appeals the conduct measures administered on the contraventions. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendation to allow the appeal on the allegations due to the Respondent's failure to provide reasons for her decision. The Conduct Appeal adjudicator then found Allegation #1 not established for want of cogent evidence of the identity of the member. The Conduct Appeal adjudicator did find Allegation #2 established. The Conduct Appeal adjudicator accordingly allowed the appeal of the conduct measures, rescinding the conduct measures on Allegation #1. For Allegation #2, she confirmed a written reprimand, forfeiture of 4 days' pay, and a direction to undergo medical treatment. She rescinded all other conduct measures.