C-023 - Conduct Authority Decision

In plain view of the Appellant, a handcuffed and possibly intoxicated suspect became involved in an interaction that ended with him landing head-first on a cell block floor and sustaining a wound to his face (Incident). Many documents were prepared in relation to the Incident. The Appellant authored a Report to Crown Counsel covering the arrest and included the Incident (RTCC) as well as handwritten police notes and a terse “Will Say” stating only that the Appellant was the lead investigator in the arrest of the suspect. The suspect's lawyer subsequently made a complaint, asserting in part that the Appellant and another member who was present during the Incident had authored misleading documents about the Incident.

Two allegations were brought against the Appellant, but one was ultimately deemed unfounded. The remaining allegation (Allegation) alleged that the Appellant had breached section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct by providing false or inaccurate documentation on “police reports”, with regard to the Incident. The allegedly stained reports were repeatedly identified to the Appellant as the RTCC and the “police report”. Following an investigation, a Conduct Meeting was held at which the Appellant indicated, among other things, that she had written just one report involving the Incident, namely the RTCC. The Respondent concluded that the Allegation was established and consequently, imposed against the Appellant a reprimand and a multi-day forfeiture of pay.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision and conduct measures imposed. She made eight key arguments. However, the ERC addressed only those arguments regarding procedural fairness and, in particular, the argument that she authored just one police report (i.e. the RTCC) and did not know which other impugned report had been attributed to her.

The ERC found that, by deciding that the Appellant prepared and included false or inaccurate information in a police report other than the RTCC, the Respondent fatally violated a principle of procedural fairness. The Allegation referred to “police reports” in the plural during the conduct process. Yet the record established that, although the Appellant drafted the RTCC, she neither wrote nor was aware of another impugned “police report” ascribed to her. A copy of such a report was not disclosed to the Appellant. At no time was it ever described to her by title, date, number, recipients, summary or otherwise. Such a report is not identified or identifiable in the record. While the Appellant authored two documents other than the RTCC that involved the RCMP's handling of the suspect (i.e. her written police notes, and a concise “Will Say”), neither can reasonably be treated as a “police report” and nothing in the record suggests that they were viewed by the Respondent as reports containing false or misleading information. Accordingly, it was not possible for the Appellant to know the whole case against her or to present an informed defense. This violation of procedural fairness was serious, as the combination of monetary and professional consequences faced by the Appellant were significant.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the Appellant's appeal, find that the Allegation was not established and rescind the conduct measures imposed, thereby clearing the reprimand from the Appellant's record and reimbursing any forfeited pay.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Appellant arrested [Mr. X] for domestic assault and [Cst. Y] helped her process the prisoner. [Mr. X] – who was intoxicated and handcuffed behind his back – actively resisted the attempt to escort him to his cell. During the next four seconds (the Incident), [Mr. X] pulled away from [Cst. Y] and started to fall head-first towards the Appellant. All three individuals moved several steps in the direction that [Mr. X] was falling as the Appellant attempted to hold [Mr. X] up and [Cst. Y] attempted to pull him back. [Cst. Y] then got his feet in a solid stance and was able to pull [Mr. X] back however the momentum from this response resulted in [Mr. X] falling head-first onto the floor going in the opposite direction. The fall caused a bleeding gash on [Mr. X]'s forehead resulting in [Mr. X] being transported to the hospital by paramedics. [Mr. X] received stitches at the hospital and, after a CT scan revealed no medical concerns, was released by a doctor back into police custody so he could be lodged in cells for the night.

Criminal defence counsel for [Mr. X] obtained disclosure of video recordings of the Incident and lodged a complaint that the Appellant and [Cst. Y] had criminally assaulted his client and that their written descriptions of the Incident minimized their roles in [Mr. X] falling to the ground.

As a result of this complaint the Respondent initiated Code of Conduct investigations into whether [Cst. Y] and the Appellant had used excessive force and provided false or inaccurate documentation on their police reports. The investigation into the Appellant's conduct included providing a copy of investigation materials and video recordings of the Incident to a use of force expert who – after studying the four second Incident numerous times on a second-by-second basis – formed the opinion that [Cst. Y]'s actions were not consistent with RCMP policy. The use of force expert also noted that the description of the Incident by [Cst. Y]. (which was also reflected in the narrative used by the Appellant) was not consistent with his observations from the video recording in several respects. The Respondent found that the Appellant had not used excessive force, but that she had provided false or inaccurate documents in the Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC) and a police report. The Respondent imposed a reprimand and a forfeiture of 3 days of pay as conduct measures. The Appellant Appealed both the Respondent's findings and the conduct measures he imposed.

The RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) recommended that the Appeal of both the findings and the conduct measures be allowed because the Respondent's decision was rendered in a procedurally unfair manner by referring to both the RTCC and a police report, when the record did not demonstrate what police report the Respondent was referring to. The ERC recommended that the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator find that the Allegation was not established because the error could not be corrected by reconsidering the evidence in the record. On the same basis, the ERC recommended that the conduct measures be rescinded.

The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC that the Appeal should be allowed, but he found that the procedural fairness issue could be addressed by limiting his analysis and findings to the RTCC. On that basis the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator examined the record and found that the perceived inconsistencies between the CCTV recording and the Appellant's description of events did not establish the Code of Conduct Allegation. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator also rescinded conduct measures which had been imposed on the Appellant.