C-078 - Conduct Board Decision

The Appellant was a member with 12 years’ service, and a volunteer head coach of a youth sports team. One of his co-coaches, “Ms. X”, was a high school student and a minor. The two began having text chats that became personal and suggestive, and that rarely involved the sport. For example, the Appellant often asked Ms. X about, or otherwise steered their chats to specific body parts, and he twice texted her inappropriate emojis when discussing her body parts. He also made multiple unprompted inappropriate remarks that he maintained were flirtatious and unnecessary but nothing more. Ms. X’s mother discovered some of their texts, and alerted the RCMP.

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant behaved in a manner likely to discredit the RCMP, in breach of section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation). The Allegation specified, among other things, that the Appellant texted Ms. X for weeks with the aim of fostering a sexual relationship with her. The Appellant admitted that he engaged in misconduct. However, he urged that his communications were not meant to be sexual, that they were not as grave as they might seem, and that ending his employment would be too harsh a response. Following an investigation and a contested hearing, the Conduct Board (Board) found the Allegation to be established. The Board then directed that the Appellant resign from the RCMP within 14 days, or be dismissed.

The Appellant presented an appeal. He took four main positions:

    (i)    the Board erred in concluding that one of the Particulars of the Allegation was made out;

    (ii)   the Board failed to properly assess the credibility of the witnesses;

    (iii)  the Board erred in concluding that the Appellant was pursuing a sexual relationship; and

    (iv)  the Board decided on a conduct measure that was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Neither the Appellant nor the record raised any preliminary concerns.

The ERC found that none of these positions had merit. First, although the Board could have better developed its reasons for finding one Particular to be established, its reasons identified and engaged with the Appellant’s claim, included indicators that linked the evidence to its conclusion, and formed a tenable line of analysis. Second, the Board applied the principles, set forth in long-standing case law, that guide credibility assessments. The Board also explained why it found Ms. X to be a credible and reliable witness, and the Appellant to be slightly less so. Third, the Board assessed all the information before it, including the transcripts and available texts, and gave a sound, evidence-based collection of reasons to support its conclusion that the Appellant meant to foster a sexual relationship with Ms. X. Lastly, the Appellant’s issues with the Board’s conduct measures analysis were based on a distortion of what the Board said, or were otherwise unsupported. The ERC agreed with the Board’s finding that the Appellant violated the fundamental obligations of police officers to protect young and vulnerable members of society.       

The ERC recommended dismissing the appeal and confirming the conduct measure.

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

The Appellant faced one allegation under section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct for behaving in a manner that is likely to discredit the Force. The Appellant, a volunteer head coach for a team, allegedly texted with a minor co-coach (Ms. X) for several weeks, with the aim of developing a sexual relationship with her. The Appellant contested the allegation.

The Conduct Board (Board) found that the allegation was established and ordered the Appellant to resign within 14 days or be dismissed from the Force. The Appellant appealed this decision.

On appeal, the Appellant argues that the Board’s decision was procedurally unfair as important contradictions in the evidence were not explained in the Board’s decision and was clearly unreasonable because the Board erred in finding two of the particulars were established; failed to accurately assess the respective credibility of the witnesses; and, imposed a disproportionate conduct measure.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommends dismissing this appeal and confirming the conduct measure imposed.

The adjudicator accepted the ERC recommendation after finding no manifest and determinative errors in the Board’s decision on the Allegation, or on the conduct measure. The adjudicator found the Board’s decision was supported by the record, did not contravene the principles of procedural fairness, was not based on an error of law and was not clearly unreasonable. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding and the conduct measure imposed by the Board.