C-057 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant was a supervisor at a Detachment. One of his subordinates, Cst. B, initiated a harassment complaint against the Appellant. During the investigation of the harassment complaint, additional allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the Appellant were disclosed.

Following a harassment investigation regarding the actions of the Appellant and a Conduct Meeting, the Conduct Authority issued a written decision where she found that the Appellant engaged in harassment against Cst. B, by drawing a target and writing offensive remarks on equipment worn by Cst. B (Allegation 1); and that the Appellant engaged in 12 incidents of offensive conduct, which demonstrated disrespect for women and Cst. B (Allegation 2). Both allegations were brought pursuant to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Conduct Authority imposed conduct measures of a demotion from the rank of Corporal for an indefinite period, a total forfeiture of 20 days' pay, and a direction to complete ethics/harassment training.

On appeal, the Appellant alleged that the Conduct Authority’s decision contravened the principles of procedural fairness, and was clearly unreasonable. The Appellant argued that he was denied procedural fairness because he was provided insufficient time to receive representation from the Member Representative Directorate (MRD) prior to the Conduct Meeting. The Appellant appealed the Conduct Authority’s findings on the allegations based on the Conduct Authority failing to consider relevant evidence, namely, that the Appellant could not have reasonably known Cst. B would be offended. The Appellant also appealed the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority, alleging that the imposed conduct measures, which impacted his leave and severance retirement payouts, were overly punitive.

The ERC found that the Appellant was not denied procedural fairness because he was informed, through the Notice of Conduct Meeting, that he could seek advice and assistance from the MRD.

The ERC found that the Conduct Authority considered the Appellant’s arguments and did not fail to consider any relevant evidence when determining that the Appellant engaged in harassment and disrespectful behaviour.

The ERC found that the conduct measures imposed on the Appellant by the Conduct Authority were not clearly unreasonable and did not require intervention on appeal. The Conduct Authority identified the appropriate range of conduct measures, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors. 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(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, the appeal be dismissed and the Conduct Authority’s findings on the allegations be confirmed.

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.

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

The Appellant appeals the finding made by the Respondent that two allegations raised against him are established, namely that he engaged in harassment and that he engaged in disrespectful and offensive conduct, both allegations contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Appellant also appealed the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent, namely an indefinite demotion and forfeiture of 10 days’ pay for the allegation of harassment, and the forfeiture of 10 days’ pay and training for the allegation of disrespectful and offensive conduct.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is tainted by an error of law and is clearly unreasonable. He advanced that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not afforded legal assistance from the Member Representative Directorate, as was his right; that the conduct proceedings occurred prior to completion of the investigation and that the Respondent did not consider all the evidence; and, that the conduct measures were overly punitive, particularly given the impact on his severance pay following retirement.

The RCMP External Review Committee examined the matter and recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The Adjudicator determined that the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant were not established; dismissed the appeal; and, confirmed the findings made by the Respondent as well as the conduct measures she imposed.