C-056 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant attended a bar while off-duty. In an incident which was in large part captured by video footage, the Appellant was involved in an altercation with other bar patrons. As a result of the altercation, RCMP members attended the scene. They were told that the Appellant, who had consumed alcohol, had initially kicked or pushed a female patron, Ms. X, and had later approached Ms. X and her spouse, Mr. X, to apologize. RCMP members were also told that the Appellant had then gotten into a physical altercation with Mr. X and other patrons, and had identified himself as a police officer. Responding members reported that outside the bar, after the altercation had taken place, the Appellant was argumentative with members as they tried to calm him. Eventually, the Appellant was arrested by Cst. B. Cst. B reported that the Appellant had requested “professional courtesy” after his arrest.

Two allegations of discreditable conduct were brought against the Appellant. One pertained to the Appellant being intoxicated, fighting and yelling profanities while also identifying himself as an RCMP officer. The other pertained to the Appellant committing an assault on Ms. X. A third allegation alleged that the Appellant had abused his authority by seeking professional courtesy from Cst. B. Following a Conduct Meeting, the Respondent concluded that the allegations were established. The Respondent imposed conduct measures consisting of a five-day forfeiture of pay and a nine-day forfeiture of leave, as well as a Reprimand.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision. He raised various procedural grounds which included a challenge to the Respondent’s jurisdiction to proceed with the Conduct Meeting. He also submitted that the Respondent had improperly assessed the evidence in relation to the three allegations, and that the conduct measures imposed were too harsh.

The ERC found no basis to interfere with the Respondent’s decision in light of the procedural grounds raised by the Appellant. Regarding the challenge to the Respondent’s jurisdiction, the ERC concluded that the Respondent’s role in holding the Conduct Meeting and dealing with the allegations respected the process contemplated by applicable regulations and policy. The ERC also addressed the Appellant’s arguments regarding the manner in which the Respondent had assessed the evidence in relation to each of the three allegations. Noting that significant deference was owed to the Respondent’s assessment of the facts, the ERC concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Respondent’s findings, as they were supported by the evidence and they showed a rational and tenable line of analysis. The ERC further found that there was no reason to interfere with the Respondent’s imposition of pay and leave forfeitures as conduct measures. However, it found that the Reprimand which had been imposed left the impression that many of the actions taken by the Appellant to defend himself, and make a full answer and defence, had been treated as a lack of accountability constituting an aggravating consideration. For this reason, the ERC found that the Reprimand should be rescinded.

The ERC recommended that the appeal of the Respondent’s findings that Allegations #1, #2 and #3 are established be dismissed and that those findings be confirmed. The ERC also recommended that the appeal in respect of the conduct measures relating to Allegation #1 and Allegation #2 be dismissed and that those conduct measures be confirmed. The ERC further recommends that the appeal in respect of the conduct measures relating to Allegation #3 be allowed in part, by confirming the two-day forfeiture of leave and rescinding the Reprimand imposed by the Respondent.

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

The Appellant faced two allegations under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct for conducting himself in a
manner likely to discredit the force while off-duty, by being intoxicated, fighting, and yelling profanities
while also identifying himself as a RCMP officer, and for assaulting a member of the public. Based on the
ensuing conduct investigation, a third allegation, under section 3.2, was added for abusing his authority by asking fellow officers for professional courtesy.

The Appellant contested all three allegations. The Respondent found all three allegations established and
ordered 14 days’ forfeiture of pay, with five days being taken as pay and nine days as leave, a direction to
follow up with the divisional Support for Operational Stress Injury Program coordinator, and a written
reprimand. The Appellant appealed this decision.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the investigation was incomplete; that the Respondent established
the allegations void of evidence; that the Respondent did not possess jurisdiction to hear the matter; that
procedural fairness was denied as the Conduct Authority muted his Member Workplace Advisor by
ordering him not to speak or say anything which may have benefited the Appellant; and, that the conduct
measures were overly harsh.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for review. The ERC
recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal of the Respondent’s findings that Allegations 1,
2 and 3 are established and confirm those findings. The ERC recommended that the appeal of the conduct measures relating to Allegation 1 and Allegation 2 be dismissed and that the Commissioner confirm those conduct measures. Finally, the ERC recommended that the appeal be partially allowed in respect of the conduct measure imposed for Allegation #3.

The Adjudicator upheld the Respondent’s decision finding that Allegations 1, 2 and 3 are established, as
well as the conduct measures imposed with respect to Allegations 1 and 2, but rescinded the written
reprimand associated with Allegation 3 and confirmed that the conduct measure for Allegation 3 was 16
hours’ forfeiture of leave, not 24 as the Respondent inadvertently ordered. The appeal was allowed in
part.