C-014 - Conduct Authority Decision 

The Appellant's spouse advised the RCMP that she had been a victim of domestic abuse by the Appellant. The RCMP conducted a Code of Conduct investigation into an allegation that the Appellant had engaged in disgraceful conduct by subjecting his spouse to ongoing domestic violence (Allegation). An Investigation Report comprising witness statements and other material in relation to eight alleged incidents of domestic violence was provided to the Conduct Authority (Respondent).

The Respondent reviewed the eight alleged incidents of domestic violence described in the Investigation Report and found that the Allegation was established. The Respondent also found that there was information in the record indicating that the Appellant made threats toward his spouse. In the Respondent's opinion, those threats formed part of the domestic abuse. The Respondent imposed a number of conduct measures on the Appellant, including a forfeiture of 15 days' pay.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision on the Allegation. The Appellant submitted that the Investigation Report was flawed; that the Respondent relied on inaccurate summaries of witness statements and did not carefully review all of the information before her; that the Respondent erred in some of her findings of fact and assessments of credibility, and that the Respondent's decision raised a reasonable apprehension of bias against the Appellant.

The ERC found that the Appellant could not challenge the contents of the Investigation Report for the first time on appeal. An appeal is a review of the findings and conclusions made by a decision-maker in the initial decision, not a general second chance to revisit evidence anew. The general principle is that appeal bodies should not entertain new arguments. The Appellant had full opportunity to raise any concerns with the Investigation Report before the Conduct Meeting and his failure to do so left the Respondent no opportunity to address his concerns. The Appellant's assumption that the Respondent would identify on her own his concerns with the Investigation Report does not establish the existence of exceptional circumstances which would warrant the consideration of this ground of appeal.

The ERC also found that nothing in the Respondent's decision suggested that she relied only on summaries of the investigation or witness statements. The Respondent made no reference to a reliance on any such summaries and her descriptions of the incidents which form the basis of the Allegation are generally consistent with the main elements of the full witness statements of the Appellant and his spouse.

The ERC then found that the Respondent's factual findings and credibility assessments did not give rise to a clear or manifest error that was determinative to the decision on appeal. Although the ERC found that the Respondent erred in stating that the Appellant's alleged threats formed part of the domestic abuse without first making a specific finding in that regard, the error was not determinative as the Respondent's ultimate conclusion would not have changed in the absence of the error.

Finally, the ERC found that the Appellant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent is at law presumed to act fairly and impartially and the evidence required to rebut this presumption must be substantial. The Appellant's arguments which question the conclusions of the Respondent and her weighing of the spouses' statements would not persuade an informed person, who had read the disputed decision and thought the matter through, that the Respondent consciously or unconsciously decided this case unfairly.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he dismiss the Appellant's appeal and confirm the Respondent's decision.

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

The Appellant is a constable in the RCMP who was married to a woman (R.L.) who was not a member of the RCMP. They were married for nine years and had 3 children. Their relationship was tumultuous – they experienced verbally, emotionally and physically abusive conflict which eventually lead to their separation. On September 17, 2014, R.L. attended an RCMP detachment and asked detachment personnel to serve the Appellant with a child custody document. While at the detachment R.L. alleged the Appellant had subjected her to domestic violence and raised other Code of Conduct issues.

The Appellant was investigated in relation to domestic violence through both criminal and Code of Conduct investigations. Other issues emerged in the course of the investigations resulting in more Code of Conduct investigations. The Appellant provided statements and subsequently made submissions to the Respondent relating to the domestic violence allegations during a Conduct Meeting.

The Respondent found that three of the four Code of Conduct allegations – including the one for domestic violence – had been established. The Appellant is not appealing the conduct measures which were imposed or the other two Code of Conduct allegations which were established – he is only appealing the decision to establish the Code of Conduct allegation relating to domestic violence.

The Appellant argues that the Respondent arrived at her decision in a manner which was procedurally unfair and that her decision was clearly unreasonable. The Appellant claims that the investigation was biased against him and the Respondent did not adequately consider evidence which demonstrated that he was the victim of domestic violence and was not the aggressor in his relationship with R.L.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee (ERC) reviewed this appeal and provided recommendations pursuant to s. 45.15 RCMP Act. The ERC held that some of the Appellant's submissions had not been presented to the Respondent and therefore could not be considered at the appeal stage. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator adopted this recommendation.

The ERC also recommended that the Appeal be dismissed. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator found that the Appellant's submissions failed to demonstrate that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable or was arrived at in a manner which was procedurally unfair. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC recommendation to dismiss the Appeal and partially agreed with the ERC analysis in support of that recommendation.