C-037- Conduct Board Decision

In June 2012, [Y], a civilian, met [X] at his financial institution where [Y] wanted to withdraw funds to pay his legal fees regarding a criminal charge. As a former RCMP officer, [X] told [Y] that he might be able to help and asked [Y] to bring him all his paperwork regarding his criminal charge from the RCMP. Accordingly, the next day, [X] reviewed the paperwork provided by [Y] and told him that it would cost him $5,000 to "make it go away". [Y] negotiated the price to $3,500 which would be paid in three instalments.

On or about June 28, 2012, [X] called the Respondent, his friend and former troop mate, who was on duty that day and asked whether he could meet with [Y]. [X] had indicated that he had a friend who was arrested and was willing to pay to make the charges go away. When they arrived, [X] sat in the passenger seat of the Respondent's police vehicle. [X] asked the Respondent to "run the guy and see if we can get some money". The Respondent queried [Y] in CPIC and PRIME on his mobile workstation. The Respondent told [X] that there was nothing he could do and further told [Y], who had come up to the police vehicle, to hire a lawyer for the impaired driving charges. On an undisclosed date afterwards, the Respondent texted [X] asking "what's up with the money?".

In March 2013, [X] met with [Y] and told him that the police would be arresting him any day now as they had evidence that he was not respecting his court-imposed conditions. [X] demanded $7,000 from [Y] so that he wouldn't be arrested. [Y] informed the RCMP of the situation, which prompted a criminal investigation against [X] by the RCMP's anti-corruption unit (ACU). During the investigation, the investigators learned that the Respondent had played a part in [X]'s plan to obtain money from [Y]. The Respondent's superior was informed of the Respondent's possible involvement, but delayed a Code of Conduct investigation until the ACU investigation was completed. On November 15, 2014, [X] was arrested for fraud, extortion and personating a police officer. Later that day, the Respondent was arrested for fraud and breach of trust. Upon his arrest, the Respondent admitted making the queries regarding [Y] on his mobile workstation, but denied receiving money for doing so, nor knowing that [Y] had already paid [X] when the Respondent got involved.

The Respondent faced three allegations in relation to his accessing police databases and misusing a patrol car for reasons that were unrelated to his duties. A Code of Conduct process was initiated and the Appellant sought the Respondent's dismissal. The Respondent admitted all three of the allegations and the Conduct Board found each of those allegations to be established. However, after a one-day hearing regarding the conduct measures, the Conduct Board did not order the Respondent's dismissal. Instead, the Conduct Board imposed a reprimand and a forfeiture of five days' pay and five days' annual leave for each allegation respectively.

The Appellant appealed the conduct measures imposed, requesting that the Respondent be dismissed. The Appellant raised three grounds of appeal, namely: 1) the Conduct Board failed to examine the egregious nature of the misconduct; 2) the Conduct Board contradicted itself regarding findings of the Respondent's knowledge of [X]'s plan to obtain money and 3) the Conduct Board failed to apply the reasonable person test in finding that the Respondent should not be dismissed.

The ERC first found that the Conduct Board clearly considered the egregious nature of the misconduct and indicated that it was indeed serious misconduct. However, the Conduct Board emphasized that it was limiting its findings to the allegations described in the Notice of Hearing. The Conduct Board explained that no other misconduct was alleged and no evidence of other misconduct was offered. The ERC found that it is not sufficient for a party to simply disagree with the weight afforded to evidence. The party must demonstrate that the Conduct Board made a manifest and determinative error in its assessment of the evidence.

The ERC further found that the Conduct Board did not contradict itself because the Conduct Board first made a finding that the Respondent knew that [X] wanted to obtain money from [Y]; however, the Conduct Board later found that the Respondent did not know what [X] was planning to do exactly with the CPIC information. No evidence was presented to the Conduct Board to the contrary. In the ERC's view, the two findings were not irreconcilable.

Lastly, the ERC found that the reasonable person test raised by the Appellant is the test to establish an allegation of disgraceful conduct. It is not the proper test to determine an appropriate conduct measure. The ERC found that the Conduct Board applied the correct legal test and assessed the appropriate conduct measure.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal and confirm the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Board.

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

The Commanding Officer, "Z" Division, Conduct Authority (Appellant), presented an appeal challenging the conduct measures imposed by an RCMP conduct board following its finding that three allegations of discreditable conduct were established against the subject member (Respondent). These allegations stem from the Respondent's unauthorized use of equipment and information and the unauthorized sharing of this information. The conduct board imposed a reprimand as well as a forfeiture of five days' pay and five days' annual leave for each allegation. The Appellant appeals the Board's decision on the grounds that it is based on an error of law and is clearly unreasonable.

Finding no manifest or determinative error in the conduct board's decision, the ERC recommended the appeal be dismissed.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC recommendation. The Appellant did not establish that the conduct board made any reviewable errors. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conduct measures imposed by the conduct board.