C-049 - Conduct Board Decision

Three contraventions of the Code of Conduct were established against the Appellant for the sexual harassment of a public service employee (the Complainant) in the workplace. On three occasions, the Appellant made inappropriate comments and acted inappropriately towards the Complainant. The Appellant was joking, engaging in horseplay, but the Complainant's aversion to being touched was a matter of general knowledge in the workplace. Despite strong mitigating factors, an RCMP Conduct Board (Board) determined that the gravity of the misconduct was such that the Appellant's dismissal from the Force was justified.

The Appellant is appealing the Board's decision on the basis that it contravened the principles of procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. More specifically, he argues that the Board, in addressing Allegation 1, failed to provide adequate reasons with respect to his findings on the credibility of the parties. The Appellant also submits that the sanction imposed is clearly unreasonable and grossly disproportionate to the substantiated conduct.

With respect to the Appellant's first ground of appeal, the ERC clarified that the latter is subject to a reasonableness review as opposed to a correctness review as suggested by the Appellant when he argues that his procedural rights were breached. In this regard, the ERC concluded that the Board recognized and adequately dealt with the contradictory evidence. It also found that the Board's reasons clearly articulate why it came to the conclusion that it did with respect to Allegation 1. As for the Appellant's second ground of appeal, the ERC determined that the Board committed no manifest or determinative error in its evaluation of the evidence.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied and the imposed conduct measure confirmed.

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

The Appellant appealed the decision and conduct measures imposed by an RCMP Conduct Board finding that three allegations made against him were established and ordered the Appellant’s dismissal. I agree with the ERC that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias. The Appellant provided no proof to support this serious claim. There is a presumption that Boards are fair and impartial; therefore, the burden falls on the Appellant to demonstrate bias (Report, para 81). The ERC is correct. Such behaviour is not welcome in the workplace and it is unfortunate that the Complainant was subjected to these experiences. The only acceptable sanction in the circumstances is dismissal. The appeal is dismissed. I confirm the conduct measure imposed by the Board.