Conduct (Discipline) Appeals - C-016

After many years of living together, the Appellant broke up with his spouse in December 2013. The Appellant and his ex-spouse had two young daughters. The Appellant and his ex-spouse continued living together in the family residence but slept in separate rooms. The relationship between the Appellant and his ex-spouse deteriorated quickly, and the Appellant left the family residence. His ex-spouse and two daughters continued living there. On August 14, 2014, there was an altercation between the Appellant and his ex-spouse as the Appellant was finishing moving his personal effects out of the family residence. The couple’s older daughter witnessed the scene. After this incident, the Appellant’s ex-spouse filed an assault complaint against him with the municipal police department. When he was arrested, the Appellant also filed an assault complaint, against his ex-spouse. No criminal charges were laid against the Appellant or his ex-spouse.

The Conduct Authority issued an initial investigation mandate containing a single allegation of discreditable conduct for assault under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. After receiving the investigation report, the Conduct Authority requested another investigation into four new allegations under sections 7.1 and 4.6 of the Code of Conduct. Following the conduct meeting, the Conduct Authority determined that three of the five allegations had been established. The Conduct Authority found that the Appellant had assaulted his ex-spouse, had tried to influence the testimony of his older daughter and had used an RCMP cellular telephone for inappropriate personal purposes.

The Appellant appealed the Conduct Authority’s decision. He submitted that the Respondent had made errors of fact in assessing the evidence concerning the first allegation (assault), as well as in assessing the credibility of the witnesses. More specifically, the Appellant stated that the testimony of his older daughter was not credible because she was the victim of parental alienation. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent had applied a stricter standard than the one provided in the Code of Conduct with regard to the allegations concerning the use of an RCMP telephone and the communications with his older daughter. According to him, his use of the telephone was reasonable, and as soon as he was aware that he was not allowed to use it for personal purposes, he acquired a personal cellular telephone. As for the communications with his daughter, the Appellant noted that he had not tried to influence her testimony; he wanted to discuss the situation with his daughter, as any father would.

The ERC found that the Respondent had not made a manifest and determinative error in assessing the evidence regarding the allegation of assault. The Respondent stated that he had considered the Appellant’s statements, as well as those of his ex-spouse and his older daughter. He argued that there were contradictions in the witnesses’ versions of the facts and that the information on record did not allow him to make findings on the credibility of the Appellant or that of his ex-spouse. However, he found the testimony of the Appellant’s older daughter to be credible, and he considered the circumstances surrounding her situation.

The ERC also declared that the Respondent’s finding that there had been excessive use of the cellular telephone provided by the RCMP was reasonable and that this ground of appeal was unfounded. As for the allegation concerning the inappropriate communications between the Appellant and his daughter, the ERC found that the Respondent had not made a manifest and determinative error. The Respondent explained his reasoning and the evidence that had allowed him to make his finding. He mentioned the messages from the Appellant to his daughter and her replies to them. It appears that the numerous messages from the Appellant to his daughter, and the tone used in them, went far beyond the reasonable conduct of a father wanting to make sure that his daughter knew all facts related to the incident in question.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Respondent finding that three allegations made against him had been established. These three allegations stemmed from an assault complaint filed by the Appellant’s ex-spouse following an incident at their family home, and concerned one contravention of section 4.6 and two contraventions of section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, namely, having acted or behaved in a manner that brought discredit to the RCMP and having used government-issued equipment and property for unauthorized purposes.
The Appellant raised two grounds of appeal regarding certain findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law. The Appellant argued that the Respondent had erred in assessing the evidence and in interpreting and applying the standards of conduct set out in the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC. The Appellant did not satisfy the Appeal Adjudicator that the Respondent made a manifest and determinative error. The appeal is dismissed.