C-024 - Conduct Authority Decision

A woman attended an RCMP detachment with her concern about a domestic dispute. The Appellant member was on duty at the detachment and met with her. The Appellant made no record of the meeting and later there was some disagreement about their conversation and whether the woman was fearful of her situation. The woman was visibly upset and told the Appellant that her common law spouse had stated “get away from me before I strangle you” and “get out of my face before I punch you.” The woman stated that she did not want her common law spouse charged, but that she did not know what to do. The Appellant asked her if she could stay at another residence and recommended that she return to the detachment if she felt threatened.

The woman was dissatisfied with the Appellant's response and subsequently complained to other members at the detachment. A member verified that no file was created in the Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) to record the conversation with the Appellant. The woman's complaint was investigated and her common law spouse was subsequently charged with uttering threats. The Respondent ordered a Code of Conduct investigation against the Appellant, based on the Allegation that the Appellant knowingly failed to open a PROS file and to conduct investigations after receiving information of uttered threats, which contravened section 4.2 of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

Following an investigation, a Conduct Meeting was held. The Respondent concluded that the Allegation was established and imposed a reprimand, a forfeiture of two days' pay and mandatory training. The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision and conduct measures. He argued that the Respondent erroneously focused on what the woman told other members when assessing what information the Appellant had when he decided not to investigate further. The Appellant also argued that he conducted an investigation into the woman's complaint, and that the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent were improperly based partly on the Appellant's past discipline for spousal abuse. The Appellant requested a case conference. This request was denied by an Adjudicator's Recourse Advisor as premature.

Since the Appellant made no objections to the Recourse Advisor's denial in his appeal submissions, the ERC disregarded this particular request for a case conference. However, the ERC observed that nothing in the applicable policy, regulations or statute limited an Adjudicator's discretion to hold a case conference in a conduct appeal prior to the ERC's review.

The ERC found that the Respondent properly focused on what the woman told the Appellant, and not on what she subsequently told other members at the detachment. After reviewing operational requirements for an investigation, the ERC concluded that the Respondent made no manifest and determinative error when she found that the Appellant failed to conduct an investigation. The ERC found that the Appellant provided nothing to support his contention that prior discipline against him was unfounded. Furthermore, the Respondent was entitled to consider the Appellant's prior discipline as an aggravating factor pursuant to Appendix 1-20 to Chapter XII.1 (Conduct) of the RCMP Administration Manual.

The ERC observed that when considering whether section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct had been breached, the Respondent had to determine whether the Appellant's conduct involved an element of willfulness or, alternatively, a degree of neglect that elevated the conduct from a mere performance issue to an issue of misconduct. The ERC concluded that the Respondent found an element of willfulness in the Appellant's actions.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the Appeal, confirm the decision and confirm the conduct measures.

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

On May 15, 2016, a woman, Ms. X, attended an RCMP Detachment and spoke with the Appellant. She sought assistance with a marital matter involving her estranged common law spouse, Mr. X. The details of the conversation between Ms. X and the Appellant are in dispute.

Ms. X left the Detachment feeling dissatisfied and without the information she needed. She contacted another member the following day and disclosed that she had been threatened by Mr. X who said “get away from me before I punch you” and “I can't stand to see you – I could strangle you”. She informed the member that she had told the Appellant of the threats Mr. X made against her but she was only told to stay somewhere else and return to the Detachment if she felt threatened. It was confirmed that the Appellant had not opened a Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file concerning Ms. X the previous day. Other members investigated Ms. X's complaint and Mr. X was charged with two counts of uttering threats.

The Respondent ordered a Code of Conduct investigation based on the allegation that the Appellant knowingly failed to open a PROS occurrence and conduct an investigation after receiving information of a domestic violence/uttering threats situation involving Ms. X, thereby neglecting his duty and contravening section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct.

Following an investigation, a Conduct Meeting was held. The Respondent found the allegation established and imposed a written reprimand, direction for training on domestic violence and a forfeiture of two days pay.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent's finding and the imposition of conduct measures on the basis that they were procedurally unfair and clearly unreasonable. The Appellant argued that Ms. X provided different information to him during her initial visit than to the members who conducted the subsequent investigation. He maintained that Ms. X did not portray a threatening situation, but more of a civil dispute over ownership of the shared house. The Appellant also argued that he did conduct an investigation into Ms. X's complaint in accordance with policy.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed and dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegation was established and confirmed the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent.