C-065 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant’s field trainee (Complainant) resigned from the RCMP and gave an exit interview wherein he raised concerns over how the Appellant had treated him. While a formal complaint was never filed, these concerns formed the basis of multiple allegations of harassment against the Appellant. The allegations included instances where the Appellant made inappropriate comments about the Complainant’s accent, among other things. The Respondent ultimately found that the Appellant had engaged in harassment contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct based on three of the six allegations. He imposed forfeitures of 80 hours (ten days) leave and 16 hours (two days) pay, a one-year period of ineligibility for promotion, a written reprimand, and a requirement to engage and participate in specified online training.

The Appellant raised six grounds of appeal, namely that the conduct measures imposed were punitive rather than corrective, that he was denied the right to deal with the matter informally, that the investigation exceeded one year, that he had been singled out, that the three allegations had been over a year old when the complaint was made, and that the RCMP Act had not been in force when the events that gave rise to two of the allegations occurred. 

As a preliminary matter, the ERC found that there was no timeliness issue requiring intervention on appeal because there was less than a year between the date of the Mandate Letter and the date on which the conduct measures were imposed.

The ERC found that there was no “right” as such for the Appellant to deal with the issues at the informal stage. It noted that, contrary to the Appellant’s recounting of events, the Complainant expressed in his interview that he did not wish to resolve the matter informally.

The ERC then found that the expiry of the one-year limitation applicable to complainants does not preclude a conduct authority from initiating an investigation into allegations of perceived harassment. The only limitation period that is relevant to the resolution of the appeal is the one-year prescription imposed on conduct authorities by subsection 42(2) of the RCMP Act, and this had been dealt with as a preliminary matter.

The ERC also found that the argument that the Appellant had been singled out was not responsive to the Decision and that it simply leveled an accusation at a Commanding Officer without evidence.

Finally, the ERC found that the Respondent’s reasons establish why he imposed the conduct measures that he did and that the measures fell within the range of current practices. The RCMP Act was applicable because the Mandate Letter was issued after the former came into force. 

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal.

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

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Commanding Officer of “X” Division (Respondent) who, in their capacity as conduct authority, found that three allegations against the Appellant were established, namely that he engaged in harassment contrary to Section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct. Based on that finding, the Respondent imposed as sanction the forfeiture of 10 days’ leave and 2 days’ pay, as well as an ineligibility for promotion for one year and a reprimand.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s decision was reached in contravention of the principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable. Alternatively, he argued that the conduct measures are disproportionate to the established contraventions of the Code of Conduct. He submitted that the allegations suffered timeliness issues in that they were raised beyond a year after their occurrence, and that he was deprived of the possibility of resolving the matter informally.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed on the basis that the Appellant failed to establish his grounds of appeal.

The Adjudicator determined that the Respondent’s decision was not reached in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is not tainted by an error of law and is not clearly unreasonable. The Appeal was therefore dismissed.