C-064 - Conduct Authority Decision

A Level III RCMP Conduct Authority (Respondent) found that Appellant had engaged in workplace harassment contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed a financial penalty of 15 days and an ineligibility for promotion for one year. The Appellant appealed the decision and the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision on Allegations 2 and 3 on several grounds. The Appellant argued that the Respondent failed to explain his credibility findings or provide sufficient reasons in the decision. The Appellant argued that the Respondent erred in law by applying the wrong test for harassment to the facts. Finally, the Appellant asserted that if the actions of the Appellant were harassment, the Respondent’s imposition of conduct measures was clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Respondent did not sufficiently explain his findings on credibility and harassment and the decision was clearly unreasonable. The ERC further found that the Respondent’s decision did not properly assess whether the Appellant’s actions were harassment. 

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal and conduct a new assessment of the allegations. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner find that Allegation 2 is established, but Allegation 3 is not. The ERC recommended seven days financial penalty and a reprimand.  

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

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Level III Conduct Authority of “X” Division (Respondent). The latter found that two allegations against the Appellant were established, namely that he engaged in improper conduct directed at and offensive to another individual in the workplace, which he knew or ought to reasonably have known would cause offence or harm, thereby engaging in harassment, contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. Based on that finding, the Respondent imposed as sanction that the Appellant forfeit 15 days’ pay and an ineligibility for promotion for one year.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s decision was reached in contravention of the principles of procedural fairness and is based on an error of law. Alternatively, he argued that the conduct measures are disproportionate to the established contraventions of the Code of Conduct. He submitted that the Respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons his decision, noting that the Respondent did not provide an explanation for his credibility findings. Moreover, he argued that the Respondent erred in law by applying the incorrect test for harassment and did not consider the allegations from the perspective of a reasonable person.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the basis that the Respondent provided insufficient reasons for his decision and did not consider the reasonable person test with respect to the harassment allegation. The ERC recommended that one allegation be found established and the other not, and that a sanction of forfeiture of seven days’ pay and a reprimand be imposed.

The Adjudicator determined that the decision was clearly unreasonable for lack of justifiable, transparent and intelligible reasons. The appeal is therefore allowed.

Accordingly, the Adjudicator quashed the decision and rendered one of his own. After finding the two allegations to be established, he imposed conduct measures of 8 days’ forfeiture of pay and a reprimand.