C-074 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Respondent brought forward a single Allegation that the Appellant had contravened section 4.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. Section 4.1 specifies that members report for and remain on duty unless otherwise authorized.

The alleged misconduct related to three events, on three separate days. At the time of the events, the Appellant was a supervisor. The first event involved the Appellant allegedly going home and off duty during his shift, without authorization. The second event involved the Appellant allegedly driving beyond the duty area twice in his police vehicle while on shift, without authorization. The third event involved the Appellant allegedly briefly driving beyond the duty area in his police vehicle, without authorization.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision that he contravened section 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Appellant also appealed the Respondent’s imposition of a conduct measure, which consisted of the forfeiture of two days of pay.

The Appellant admitted to the events that took place. The Appellant submitted that the events were the manifestation of a workplace injury (disability) that should be accommodated. In the alternative, the Appellant submitted that the events should have been dealt with as a performance matter, rather than as a conduct matter. 

The ERC found that the Respondent’s Decision finding the Allegation established was not clearly unreasonable, nor did it contain errors of law.

The ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that there was a causal connection between a disability and his misconduct. The ERC also found that the Force’s duty to inquire into the Appellant’s circumstances was met, and the Respondent outlined the inquiries made by the Appellant’s supervisor in that regard in his Decision. In addition, the ERC found the Decision was not clearly unreasonable, as it provided a rational and tenable line of analysis of the issues.

The ERC further found that the Respondent’s reasons, in assessing the question of a performance matter as opposed to a conduct mater, did not reveal an error that would render the Decision clearly unreasonable. The Respondent explained that the Appellant was a very experienced member, and a supervisor who had been given informal guidance only six months before the impugned misconduct. This justified using the conduct process, rather than treating it as a performance matter.

However, the ERC found that the conduct measure imposed was clearly unreasonable. The Respondent considered an irrelevant aggravating factor and did not explain how he weighed and considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing the selected conduct measure. 

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s finding on the Allegation, and confirm that the Allegation is established. The ERC also recommended allowing the appeal against the conduct measure imposed, and that the Appellant receive a conduct measure consisting of a forfeiture of one day of pay.

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

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Respondent who, in his capacity as Conduct Authority, found that one allegation against the Appellant was established, namely that he failed to report for duty and remain in his duty area, contrary to section 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. Based on that finding, the Respondent imposed as sanction the forfeiture of two days’ pay.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s decision was reached in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law and is clearly unreasonable.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal of the findings be dismissed, but that the appeal of the conduct measures be allowed on the basis that the Respondent considered an irrelevant aggravating factor, and did not sufficiently explain how he balanced and weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at the conduct measure imposed. The ERC recommended the forfeiture of one day’s pay instead.

The Adjudicator concurred with the ERC, confirmed the Respondent’s decision on the findings and rescinded the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent, imposing instead the forfeiture of one day’s pay.