C-017 - Conduct Board Decision

In 2015, the Respondent arrested an individual for impaired driving. This individual provided breath samples of 100mg% and 90mg%. Following an inquiry from his supervisor on this file, the Respondent forged an email exchange with a local Crown prosecutor in which the latter stated that there would be no charges laid against the individual. The Respondent made electronic file reports reflecting this exchange and repeated the gist of the email to his supervisor. He placed a copy of the email exchange on the file and in the Police Reports Occurrence System. The Respondent did not know the individual. However, he believed this person would lose his employment if a charge was filed as the charge would trigger an extended license suspension. The Respondent accidently transmitted the email to the Crown prosecutor. The Crown prosecutor brought the matter to the attention of his supervisor, the Regional Director of Public Prosecutions, who filed a complaint with the Force. The Respondent was criminally charged with forgery and uttering a forged document. He pled guilty to the charge of forgery and received a conditional discharge, four months’ probation, an order to make a $1,000 charitable contribution (which was made) and a direction to continue psychological counselling.

The Appellant sought the Respondent’s dismissal from the RCMP. A Conduct Board was convened under the new RCMP Act. The Board was of the view that, under the circumstances, dismissal was unduly harsh. It imposed an aggregate forfeiture of 60 days of the Respondent’s pay and other conduct measures. The Appellant appealed the conduct measures and requests that the Respondent be dismissed.

The ERC found that the Board committed no manifest or determinative error in its consideration and weighing of the implications of the McNeil disclosure obligations on the continued employment of the Respondent. The Board’s conclusion that the retention of the Respondent would not place an untenable administrative burden on the Force is consistent with the case law and the Board’s consideration of all of the other factors in this case. The ERC further found that the Board committed no error in failing to consider the elements of the Allegations as aggravating factors in the imposition of conduct measures as aggravating factors must go above and beyond the constituting elements of the allegation. The ERC found that the Board committed no manifest and determinative error in the appreciation of the mitigating and aggravating factors.

Further, the ERC found that there was no error in the Board’s decision on sanction as there is no statutory limit to forfeiture of pay in the RCMP regime. The Board balanced the serious nature of the misconduct of the Respondent against a number of persuasive mitigating factors, including his psychological state, his exemplary performance and continued support within the Force, and his rehabilitative potential. Finally, the ERC found that the Board did not contravene the principles of procedural fairness when it did not call specific witnesses. The ERC found that the new conduct board regime did not alter the adjudicative nature of conduct boards.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal and confirm the conduct measures imposed by the Board.

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

The Commanding Officer, “J” Division, Conduct Authority (Appellant) presented an appeal challenging the conduct measures imposed by an RCMP conduct board following its finding that four allegations of discreditable conduct and inaccurate accounts were established against (The Respondent). These allegations stem from the Respondent’s forging of an email exchange between himself and a local Crown prosecutor in relation to a file involving an impaired driving charge. The conduct board imposed four reprimands, a direction for the Respondent to undergo medical treatment in the form of psychological services, and a total pay forfeiture of 60 days. The Appellant presented 10 grounds of appeal raising findings made by the conduct board that were clearly unreasonable as well as a breach of procedural fairness.

Finding no manifest or determinative error in the conduct board’s decision, the ERC recommended the dismissal of the appeal.

The Adjudicator accepted the ERC recommendation but disagreed with the assertion by the ERC that the nature of the role of conduct boards in the current conduct process does not differ materially from the former discipline regime. The Adjudicator held that the Appellant did not establish that the conduct board made any reviewable errors. The Adjudicator denied the appeal and confirmed the conduct measures imposed by the conduct board.