Conduct (Discipline) Appeals - C-019

The Appellant was scheduled to attend four traffic court trials in June 2015. He received court notices for the four files but failed to attend court. A performance log (Form 1004) was issued to the Appellant in July 2015. The performance log stated that the Appellant indicated he had forgotten to attend court. The serious nature of missing trials, including traffic court trials, was brought to the Appellant's attention. In September 2015, the Appellant again failed to appear in court for three scheduled traffic court trials. The Appellant had been advised of his obligation by email by his line officer and by the Watch Clerk. In a narrative text filed a month later, the Appellant indicated that he had missed traffic court in September as he had worked the night shift until 6:00 a.m. and did not recall the traffic court scheduled for 9:30 a.m.

One allegation was brought against the Appellant under section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct (diligence in the performance of member's duties). A conduct meeting was held at which the Appellant made submissions. The Respondent found that the allegation was established and imposed a forfeiture of two days' pay. The Appellant received the decision on January 18, 2016 and appealed the finding that the allegation was established. He did not appeal the conduct measure.

Upon review of the case file, the ERC noted that the Appellant filed his appeal one day outside the statutory time limit of fourteen (14) days. On two separate occasions, the ERC requested the Appellant's submissions explaining the delay. The Appellant did not provide submissions. The ERC found that the Appellant had filed his appeal outside the statutory time limit. It further found that, absent an explanation from the Appellant, there were no exceptional circumstances in this case which would warrant an extension of time pursuant to subsection 29(e) of the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals).

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal.

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

The Appellant was scheduled to attend four traffic court trials in June 2015, and – despite receiving court notices – forgot to attend court. A performance log – form 1004 – was issued to the Appellant in July 2015. The serious nature of missing trials, including traffic court trials, was brought to the Appellant's attention.

In September 2015, the Appellant was scheduled to appear in court for three traffic court trials. Again he failed to appear despite reminders of his scheduled court appearances from both his Watch Commander and the Watch Clerk. On October 21, 2015, the Appellant completed a narrative text explaining he had missed traffic court in September 2015 as he had worked the night shift until 6:00 a.m. and forgot to attend traffic court scheduled for 9:30 a.m.

On October 30, 2015, the Appellant's Watch Commander informed the Respondent of the Appellant's missed court dates and provided him with the supporting materials and documentation. The Respondent reviewed the information provided to him and determined that – on a prima facie basis – there was enough evidence to justify a Conduct Meeting to examine whether the Appellant had:

Allegation 1: failed to attend a scheduled traffic court date despite being properly notified, contrary to section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct.

After hearing the Appellant's submissions during a Conduct Meeting on January 14, 2016, the Respondent found that the allegation was established. The Respondent imposed a conduct measure of a forfeiture of two days' pay. Only the Respondent's finding was appealed.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee (ERC) reviewed this appeal pursuant to s 45.15 of the RCMP Act. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed as it was not filed within the 14-day limitation period pursuant to s 22 of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals).

The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator followed the ERC's recommendation. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator considered granting an extension to the limitation period pursuant to his delegated authority under s 29(e) of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals). While given the opportunity by the ERC – on two separate occasions – to provide a submission on timeliness, the Appellant failed to provide any rationale or explanation for why his appeal was filed outside of the limitation period. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator found that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The appeal was dismissed.