C-052 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant was the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in charge in a detachment. A Public Service Employee (PSE), who provided administrative support to the unit, reported that the Appellant sent her inappropriate text messages.

The Appellant was notified of the initiation of a Code of Conduct investigation pertaining to the inappropriate text messages. The Appellant met with a number of male members of the unit to inform them of the Code of Conduct investigation and named the PSE who made the complaint against him. Additional Code of Conduct allegations were then mandated against the Appellant for excluding a female civilian member from the unit meeting and disclosing protected information regarding the complainant.

Following a Code of Conduct investigation regarding the actions of the Appellant and a Conduct Meeting, the Conduct Authority issued a written decision where he found that four out of five allegations against the Appellant were established. The Appellant was found to have (1) misused Force equipment by sending personal text messages; (2) abused his authority and engaged in discreditable conduct by seeking a romantic relationship with a subordinate; (3) engaged in harassment by excluding a civilian member from a unit meeting; and, (4) improperly disclosing protected information. A fifth allegation of failing to disclose an interpersonal relationship was not established.

The Conduct Authority imposed conduct measures consisting of a demotion from the rank of Sergeant to Corporal for an indefinite period; ineligibility for promotion for a period of one year; transfer from his current position; an order to follow any treatment plan by the Health Services Officer as appropriate; the completion of an online Harassment in the Workplace course; and a reprimand.

The Appellant appealed the decision. He alleges that the Conduct Authority’s decision to impose a demotion as part of conduct measures was clearly unreasonable. The Appellant alleges (1) the conduct measures do not reflect prior similar cases; and (2) the Conduct Authority did not properly consider the mitigating factors; failed to consider relevant evidence; and considered certain irrelevant factors.

The ERC found that the conduct measures imposed on the Appellant by the Conduct Authority were not clearly unreasonable and do not require intervention on appeal. The Conduct Authority identified the appropriate range of conduct measures that he would consider imposing in the Decision. The Conduct Authority’s identification of both mitigating and aggravating factors in his Decision was supported by the record and was not influenced by irrelevant considerations. The conduct measures selected by the Conduct Authority were proportionate to the misconduct and supported by the principles in the Conduct Measures Guide.

The ERC recommended that, pursuant to subsection 45.16(3)(a) of the RCMP Act, the appeal relating to conduct measures be dismissed and that the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority be confirmed.

La commissaire a rendu la décision suivante, telle que résumée par son personnel :

The Appellant appeals the conduct measures imposed by the Commanding Officer of “X” Division (the Respondent). The Respondent found that four allegations against the Appellant were established, contrary to sections 4.6, 7.1, 2.1, and 9.1 of the Code of Conduct, a Schedule to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014, SOR/2014-281. The Respondent imposed six conduct measures.

The Appellant contends that the conduct measures were imposed in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness and are clearly unreasonable because the Respondent did not properly consider comparable conduct measures in similar cases, but considered irrelevant factors. Some evidence and mitigating factors were also not accurately taken into consideration. The Appellant requests that his rank of Sergeant be reinstated and the demotion be substituted with a monetary penalty of 15 to 25 days' forfeiture of pay.

In accordance with subsection 45.15(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC 1985, c R-10, the appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for review. In a report issued on October 7, 2021 (ERC C-2019-022 (C-052)), the Chair of the ERC, Mr. Charles Randall Smith, recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

After reviewing the Respondent's decision and the Appellant's submissions, the adjudicator finds that the Respondent's decision was not reached in a manner that breached the applicable principles of procedural fairness and it is not clearly unreasonable. The adjudicator dismisses the appeal and confirms the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent.