C-032 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant, along with another RCMP officer, arrested an individual pursuant to provincial mental health legislation and brought him to a local hospital. The individual was not cooperative while being placed under arrest, but had calmed down by the time they arrived at the hospital. After being at the hospital for what the Appellant estimated to be roughly 90 minutes, he told the doctor treating the individual that he and the other officer would be leaving and to call hospital security or local police should the individual thereinafter pose a problem. Shortly after the Appellant left the hospital, the individual became agitated and threatened the doctor and other health care staff. Local police were called and dealt with the individual.

A Code of Conduct investigation took place in relation to the Appellant's actions. Following a conduct meeting, the Respondent issued a written decision wherein he concluded that the Appellant had breached section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct which requires members to be diligent in the performance of their duties including taking appropriate action to aid any person who is exposed to potential, immediate or actual danger.

The Respondent determined that the Appellant was asked by the doctor to remain at the hospital but ignored this request. The Respondent came to this conclusion after reviewing various witness statements including those of the doctor and the other officer who was with the Appellant on that day. The Respondent found that by leaving his duty area, the Appellant disregarded well established policy on dealing with individuals arrested and brought to a hospital. The Respondent also determined that the Appellant added to his PROS report once he heard that a complaint had been made. The Respondent imposed conduct measures which consisted of a forfeiture of 20 hours of pay and 20 hours of annual leave, no support for promotion for a period of one year, a written reprimand and a letter of apology addressed to the doctor. The Appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the Respondent exceeded the seven-day time limit for issuing the decision as set out in the RCMP Conduct Policy (Policy) and that the conduct measures imposed were too harsh.

The ERC dealt with the two grounds raised on appeal. First, while the Appellant did wait 26 days for the decision of the Respondent, which exceeded the seven-day period provided for in the Policy, this did not result in procedural unfairness to the Appellant. The Appellant had verbally agreed to the Respondent's request during the conduct meeting for additional time to render his decision and there was no prejudice to the Appellant resulting from the delay. Second, while the Respondent imposed a relatively severe set of conduct measures in the circumstances, they still fell within the range of conduct measures available to him and were not clearly unreasonable. It is evident that the Respondent took the totality of the evidence into consideration including the doctor's assertion that she asked the Appellant to stay at the hospital, the lack of justification for leaving the hospital and the Appellant's decision to add to his PROS report after he realized a complaint had come forward.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied. The ERC also recommended that steps be taken to ensure that conduct authorities comply with the requirements of the Policy and seek written consent of the member where the seven-day time for rendering a decision following a conduct meeting cannot be met.

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

On September 16, 2016, the Appellant and another RCMP officer responded to a report of a male (Patient). The members had to use force to take the Patient into custody so that he could be medically assessed, however he subsequently became cooperative and apologetic. While the doctor was assessing the Patient, the doctor asked the Appellant and the other RCMP officer to remain at the hospital. The Appellant replied that "we don't normally do that" and advised her (and a hospital security guard) to contact the local police if there were any difficulties with the Patient. The Appellant and the other officer left the hospital and the doctor was subsequently required to contact the local police for assistance due to difficulties in controlling the Patient. The local police contacted the RCMP and lodged a complaint that the RCMP officers should have remained at the hospital until he had been formally admitted.

The Respondent initiated a Code of Conduct investigation into whether the Appellant left his duty area without justification, contrary to section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct. The Conduct Meeting occurred on February 15, 2017, but the Appellant did not receive a decision from the Respondent until March 13, 2017. The Respondent found that the allegation was established. As conduct measures, the Respondent imposed a forfeiture of 20 days pay and the deduction of 20 hours annual leave. Additional conduct measures imposed by the Respondent included a direction for the Appellant to write a letter of apology to the doctor, the decision that the Appellant would be ineligible for promotion for one year, and a written reprimand.

The Appellant has not challenged the Respondent's findings. However, the Appellant argued the decision was rendered in a manner that was procedurally unfair because it took so long for the Appellant to receive the decision. Also, the Appellant described the conduct measures as "harsh."

The Respondent contravened RCMP policy by not serving the Appellant the decision earlier, but this caused no prejudice to the Appellant so the ERC found that this mistake did not render the decision procedurally unfair. The ERC also found that the Appellant's submissions failed to demonstrate that the conduct measures were clearly unreasonable. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator (Adjudicator) agreed with the ERC findings. The ERC recommended that the Appeal of both the findings and the conduct measures should both be dismissed.

The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC findings (in some cases for different reasons) and accepted the ERC recommendations. The Adjudicator dismissed the appeal of both the findings and conduct measures.