C-059 - Conduct Board Decision

This is an appeal by an RCMP member, requesting the decision dismissing him from the Force be overturned.

The Appellant was alleged to have provided false or incomplete information to an investigator during a Code of Conduct investigation, into whether he conducted himself in a discreditable manner towards his supervisor. The Appellant was alleged to have done this by arranging a meeting between his supervisor and a member of the public and failing to tell his supervisor about the meeting or its purpose, contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct.

The Appellant provided a response to the investigator regarding this Code of Conduct investigation. However, when the investigator compared the text messages string provided by the Appellant with his response to the one provided by his supervisor, one derogatory text message he had sent to his supervisor was missing. As a result, the Appellant was alleged to have provided a false or misleading statement to the investigator in his response, contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct.

While attempting to explain the discrepancy in the text messages, the Appellant provided a statement written by another member. In this statement, the member explained that it was him that had sent the derogatory text message, without the Appellant’s knowledge. Then the Appellant stated that his young child may have deleted the text message. The Appellant was subsequently alleged to have, for a second time, failed to provide complete and accurate accounts contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct.  

The Conduct Board (Board) found that both allegations were established on a balance of probabilities. The Board further found that dismissal was the appropriate remedy as the actions of the Appellant were directly contrary to the core values of the Force.

The Appellant appealed the Board’s findings. The Appellant submitted that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the Board. He further argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by holding him to a higher standard of proof and failing to call two key witnesses. Further, the Appellant argued that the Board’s decision was clearly unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. 

The ERC found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on behalf of the Board, as the context of the whole decision would not lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Board was biased. The ERC also found that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by failing to summon two witnesses, as the Appellant was aware prior to the hearing that these two individuals wouldn’t be called and failed to raise this issue at the hearing. He was thus precluded from raising this issue on appeal. Lastly, the ERC found that the evidence supported the findings that the Board made related to the credibility of the witnesses, and the decision as a whole was reasonable.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed

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

The Appellant faced two allegations under section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct for providing a false, misleading written statement to a superior or a person in authority, while being involved as a Subject Member in a Code of Conduct investigation. The Appellant allegedly deleted a text message from an exchange before submitting the conversation to the Conduct Authority and then claimed the deleted offending text message was sent by a fellow RCMP officer without his knowledge.

The Appellant contested both allegations. A Conduct Board found the allegations established and ordered the Appellant to resign within 14 days or be dismissed from Force. The Appellant appealed this decision.

On appeal, The Appellant argues that the Board’s behaviour raised a reasonable apprehension of bias; that the Board breached his right to procedural fairness when it did not call two crucial witnesses and when it held the Appellant to a higher standard of proof than the Conduct Authority Representative; and, that the decision is unreasonable because it was unsupported by the evidence. The Appellant also argues that methods employed by the investigator breached his right to procedural fairness. Accordingly, the Appellant sought full reinstatement, including all pay, benefits and overtime, that he would have received since the issuance of the decision.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for review. The ERC found that Board did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias; did it not breach the relevant principles of procedural fairness; and, that the Board’s decision was not clearly unreasonable.

An Adjudicator found that the Board’s decision was supported by the record and not clearly unreasonable, as well as that it was not reached in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness. The appeal was dismissed.