C-027 - Conduct Board Decision

The member (Respondent) responded to a 911 call regarding individuals whose vehicle had broken down on the side of the road. When the Respondent and another member arrived at the scene, two underage youths fled in the forest nearby where they were soon found. The Respondent seized approximately 24 bottles of beer in a cooler after issuing a ticket for unlawful possession of alcohol against one of the underage youth. On his next shift, instead of disposing of the alcohol as per policy, the Respondent gave it to the firefighters across from the detachment as a gesture of “esprit de corps”. The Respondent then created a misleading entry in the Police Reporting Occurrence System and wrote an email falsely stating the alcohol had been disposed of locally.

A Code of Conduct process was initiated where the Respondent faced five allegations of discreditable conduct related to the incident. The Conduct Authority (Appellant) was seeking the Respondent’s dismissal. After a contested hearing, all five allegations were found to be established by the Conduct Board (Board). Evidence was presented on conduct measures. The Board found that the Respondent’s contraventions did not warrant dismissal and imposed a financial penalty of 35 days’. The Appellant appealed the conduct measures and requested the Respondent be dismissed.

The ERC found that the Board did not err by finding that although there were McNeil implications, it remained to be seen whether the Force’s ability to employ the Respondent was compromised. The ERC also found that the Board did not commit a manifest and determinative error in finding that the risk of recurrent behavior by the Respondent was minimal as the Respondent provided an evidentiary basis upon which the Board could draw its conclusion. The ERC further found that the Board did not err in considering the impact of the Respondent’s actions on the administration of justice as it specifically assessed the impact of the Respondent’s misconduct when it turned its mind to the implications of the McNeil decision. The Board further reviewed case law where the honesty and integrity of police officers were found lacking and these officers nonetheless retained their employment. The ERC found that the Board did not err when it considered the Respondent’s lack of self-benefit in its decision as there was evidence adduced to support its conclusion.

The ERC found that the Board did not err in minimizing the Respondent’s conduct based on the nature of the exhibits. While the Board took the nature of the exhibit in consideration when it found that the allegation was established, it was open to the Board to take the general detachment practice of roadside dumping into consideration as a mitigating factor. The ERC further found that although the Board took an irrelevant mitigating factor (acrimonious relationship between the A/CO and the Respondent) in consideration, it was not a manifest and determinative error because it was not determinative in respect of the Board’s conclusion that the Respondent should not be dismissed. The Board had found several mitigating factors, the acrimonious relationship being only one of them. 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.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied.

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

The Respondent was subject of an investigation in which it was found that he engaged in five counts of discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Conduct Board imposed conduct measures comprising a total forfeiture of 35-days pay and a reprimand for each of the five contraventions.

The Appellant presented her appeal, arguing that the conduct measures imposed were clearly unreasonable, and based on an error of law.

The matter was reviewed by the ERC. The Chairperson determined that the Conduct Board's decision was not clearly unreasonable, nor based on an error of law. With no manifest and determinative error disclosed, the Chairperson recommended that the appeal be denied and that the conduct measures be confirmed.

The Adjudicator concurred with the Chairperson. In finding no reason to interfere with the Conduct Board's decision, the Adjudicator denied the appeal and, in accordance with paragraph 45.16(3)(b) of the RCMP Act, confirmed the imposed conduct measures.