C-058 - Conduct Board Decision

The Appellant faced six discreditable conduct allegations at a hearing before a Conduct Board. The allegations pertained to the Appellant’s interactions with several different women arising from his duties as an RCMP member. After hearing the evidence, the Board found that the allegations had been established. In two instances, the Appellant was found to have taken advantage of his position as a police officer to have sexual relations with women. In another instance, the Appellant had approached a minor and verified her identity by asking her questions about a sensitive matter noted in police records, which were accessible on his police car’s computer, upsetting her. The Appellant had also responded to that individual’s request to ride in his police car with an inappropriate comment. In a further instance, the Appellant had failed to follow up on a complainant’s disclosure of possible sexual assault. The Board ordered the Appellant to resign.  

The Appellant appealed the Board’s decision on several grounds. He argued that the hearing had been unfair, as he had received insufficient disclosure before the hearing began. He also believed that the Board had improperly refused to require a witness to testify. In addition, the Appellant believed that the Board had acted unfairly by rendering its decision without considering his written submission, and by making certain comments indicating prejudgment. Further, the Appellant believed that certain witnesses had been improperly influenced by questions and comments made by investigators during their interviews, and that the Board had erred in accepting the evidence of those witnesses.

The ERC found that the Appellant was precluded from raising a disclosure issue on appeal pursuant to paragraph 25(2)(b) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals). This is because the disclosure argument that was advanced on appeal had not been presented to the Board. Similarly, the Appellant’s argument that the Board should have required a witness to testify could not be raised on appeal, as the Appellant had not taken a position on that issue before the Board. The ERC further found that the Appellant had not established that the Board had failed to consider his written submission. The Record showed that the submission was properly before the Board and that the Board had addressed its content. The ERC also disagreed that the way the Board had conducted the hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Board’s actions indicated that it had remained open-minded throughout the hearing. Finally, the ERC addressed the Board’s handling of concerns with respect to the way the witness interviews had been conducted during the investigation. The Board’s reasons showed a rational and tenable line of analysis, in that it had handled those concerns by ensuring witnesses were called to testify and by evaluating whether their credibility was impacted by investigators’ comments during their interviews. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

A conduct board found six Code of Conduct allegations established and ordered the Appellant to resign within 14 days, in default of which he would be dismissed. The Appellant appealed the decision on the basis that the conduct board: (1) failed to ensure adequate disclosure prior to the hearing; (2) improperly refused to require an investigator to testify during the hearing; (3) failed to consider a written submission provided by the Appellant during closing arguments, and prejudged the case; (4) erred by eliciting witness testimony to compensate for tainted evidence; (5) improperly relied on certain evidence and information; (6) referred to corroborating evidence with insufficient specificity; and, (7) made certain findings arising from information that had not been disclosed to the Appellant. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC, and dismissed the appeal after finding that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the conduct board made any reviewable errors. The conduct measure imposed by the conduct board was confirmed.