C-035 - Conduct Authority Decision

Amid the escalation of a localized natural disaster, the Appellant was evacuated from his residential neighbourhood after a state of emergency was declared in the community. The subject member, a Constable stationed in the community, was scheduled for Regular Time-Off that day. The Appellant evacuated his young child, and drove to a nearby city unaffected by the natural disaster. The Appellant was scheduled to resume his shifts at his work location the following day. Instead, the Appellant reported to the divisional headquarters in the city to which he had driven, where the Appellant claims that he was “stood down” from duty by a member of superior rank. As the sole parent available to care for his child during the natural disaster, the Appellant remained with his child for the next few days.

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 she concluded that the Appellant had breached subsection 4.1 of the Code of Conduct, which requires that members report for and remain on duty unless otherwise authorized.

The Respondent concluded that while the Appellant had made some efforts to report for duty at the divisional headquarters, the Appellant did not report for duty as scheduled in the member’s work location and was thus in contravention of subsection 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed conduct measures which included a forfeiture of 12 hours pay and 12 hours of annual leave, among other measures. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s finding that the allegation was established, arguing that he was justified in being absent from duty. He pointed to evidence that he had been stood down from duty, and that he had unexpectedly been required to care for his young child as the sole parent available during that time.

After addressing the preliminary issues of referability and timeliness, the ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable. The ERC found that the Respondent failed to provide a meaningful analysis of key evidence contained in the record, which suggested that the Appellant could have reasonably considered himself to be authorized to be absent, and that his family situation amounted to a justifiable excuse to be absent. The ERC then undertook its own evaluation of the evidence in accordance with paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, as a result of which it found that the Appellant was otherwise authorized to be absent from duty, and/or had a reasonable excuse to be absent from duty during the period of the allegation.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner that she allow the appeal of the Respondent's finding on the allegation on the ground that the Respondent's decision is clearly unreasonable. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner, in making the finding that the Respondent should have made pursuant to paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, conclude that the allegation is not established.

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

The Appellant was scheduled for regular time-off (RTO) and on that day, a state of emergency was declared due to the threat of a natural disaster. The Appellant evacuated his family from his home just before the neighbourhood became heavily impacted by the natural disaster. They travelled to stay with a friend. Due to the terms of a strict custody arrangement, the Appellant was unable to leave his young child with any individual who was not a biological parent to his young child. The Appellant did not report for duty to assist with the evacuation and emergency efforts after a subsequent mandatory call-out was issued by the acting Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Detachment. The Appellant informed the acting Sergeant at the Detachment about his situation.

The Appellant was scheduled to resume his work shift. In accordance with policy, he reported to his nearest post located at "X" Division Headquarters. There, a member of senior rank informed the Appellant that he was stood down from duty, and that any other members arriving would also be stood down as other members were being brought in. The member of senior rank then referred the Appellant to the Health Services Officer (HSO) and put him in touch with peer to peer services.

For several days thereafter, the Appellant remained with his young child as he was not prepared to leave them in the care of anyone other than their mother who had been evacuated elsewhere.

A Code of Conduct investigation was initiated and the investigation report was forwarded to the Respondent for review. Following a conduct meeting, the Respondent found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant had failed to report for or remain on duty to assist with the evacuation of the community as part of the core emergency services, contrary to section 4.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation). As conduct measures, the Respondent imposed a written reprimand, direction for a review of the RCMP Core Values, a deduction of 12 hours of annual leave and a forfeiture of 12 hours of pay. The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision.

The case was referred to the ERC for a review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed after finding that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable by not addressing the Appellant's argument that he was otherwise authorized to be absent from duty based on his understanding that he was stood down after reporting to "X" Division Headquarters, and failing to adequately assess the family-related excuse for the Appellant's absence from duty.

The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator allowed the appeal, found the Allegation not established, rescinded the conduct measures, and directed the Respondent to ensure that the Appellant is credited with 12 hours of annual leave and 12 hours of pay.