C-025 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant participated in a deployment to a foreign country. As part of his pre-deployment training, the Appellant signed an agreement pursuant to which he undertook not to engage in sexual or intimate relations with local citizens (local nationals) of that country for the duration of his mission. Near the end of the Appellant's deployment, the Appellant's roommate informed a senior officer of the Canadian contingent (senior officer) that she believed the Appellant was intimately involved with a local national. The roommate had discovered information by secretly looking at the Appellant's cell phone and reviewing text messages she believed to have been exchanged with the local national. The roommate had initially been alerted to possible infidelity by the Appellant's girlfriend in Canada, who was her personal friend and had become suspicious. Having been informed of the roommate's suspicions, the senior officer met with the Appellant, who denied having an affair with a local national. The Appellant provided a statement to the senior officer to that effect. Upon the Appellant's return to Canada, a Code of Conduct investigation took place, as a result of which witness statements were obtained, documentary evidence was gathered and an investigation report was completed. A conduct meeting was convened before the Respondent, where the Appellant faced two allegations. The first allegation stipulated that the Appellant had failed to respect his pre-deployment undertaking by having an intimate relationship with a local national, thereby disobeying a lawful order contrary to section 3.3 of the Code of Conduct. A second allegation alleged that the Appellant had misled the senior officer by denying any intimate involvement with a local national contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct. Following a conduct meeting, the Respondent found both allegations established and imposed conduct measures consisting of a financial penalty totaling 64 hours of pay and a reprimand. The Appellant appealed the Respondent's findings on the allegations.

The ERC found that the appeal had not been lodged within 14 days as required by section 22 of the CSO (Grievances and Appeals). However, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner retroactively extend this time limit as the Appellant had shown an ongoing intention to appeal, there was a reasonable explanation for the brief delay, no prejudice would result and the appeal had merit.

With respect to the allegations, the ERC found that the Force had not established on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant had engaged in an intimate relationship with a local national. While the Appellant had received text messages which were of an intimate nature, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether they had been sent by a local national, and did not establish an intimate relationship.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that she allow the appeal and make the finding that both allegations are not established.

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

The Appellant was subject of an investigation in which it was found that he contravened sections 3.3, and 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed conduct measures comprising a total forfeiture of 64 hours pay, and a reprimand. The Appellant presented his appeal, arguing that the Respondent's decision was procedurally unfair, based on an error of law, and was clearly unreasonable.

The matter was reviewed by the RCMP External Review Committee. The Chairperson determined that the Respondent's decision disclosed a manifest and determinative error, finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish the allegations. Accordingly, the Chairperson recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the allegations be found as not established. The adjudicator concurred with the Chairperson. Therefore, the Respondent's decision was set aside, and in accordance with paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, the adjudicator made the finding that, in her opinion, the conduct authority should have made. The adjudicator determined that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an intimate relationship between the Appellant and a local national, and also found that the evidence was lacking to demonstrate that the Appellant was obligated through any administrative or operational process to divulge his relationship with any non-local national. Therefore, it was found that Allegations 1 and 2 were not established, resulting in the conduct measures being rescinded.