Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

C-081 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Conduct Authority (Respondent) who found two allegations of lying to her supervisor contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct established. She also challenged the conduct measures imposed, consisting of a written reprimand and a forfeiture of five days’ pay.

The alleged misconduct related to two separate events. The first event involved the Appellant allegedly telling her supervisor that a member of the RCMP had intruded in her apartment and that she had alerted the local police service. The second event involved the Appellant allegedly telling another supervisor that a member of the RCMP had been subject to inappropriate behaviours within the Force.

The Appellant argued that the decision was procedurally unfair because the Respondent showed negative bias towards her and compromised her right to be heard. The Appellant argued that the decision was clearly unreasonable due to the Respondent’s failure to consider and provide reasons with regard to several issues and arguments raised during the conduct proceedings. She also argued that the conduct measures imposed were disproportionate. 

ERC Findings

The ERC found that the Appellant’s right to procedural fairness was not breached. The Appellant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias and had sufficient opportunities to respond to the allegations. The ERC further found that the Respondent did not commit a manifest or determinative error in his decision on the allegations nor in the reasons supporting his decision. Lastly, the ERC found that the conduct measures imposed were not unreasonable.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated June 4, 2024

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

The Appellant attended a Conduct Meeting after which the Respondent made a finding that she had lied to her supervisor on two occasions. Conduct measures were imposed consisting of a written reprimand and a financial penalty of five days’ pay.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that was procedurally unfair and was otherwise clearly unreasonable. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The adjudicator accepted the ERC’s recommendation and dismissed the appeal.

Between January 2014 and October 2017, several events took place that the Appellant perceived as harassment by the Alleged Harasser.  According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser had a negative influence on his career for several years.  In his view, this caused him to be discouraged, depressed and devoid of all ambition within the RCMP.

As the decision-maker on the harassment complaint, the Respondent did not mandate an investigation and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the alleged behaviour did not amount to harassment of the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed the matter on the grounds that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness, was based on an error of law and was clearly unreasonable.  He argued that the Respondent was not impartial, failed to conduct an overall assessment by breaking down the series of events and erred by failing to mandate an investigation to gather evidence.

The case was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC).  After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC found that the Respondent should have mandated an investigation to fully understand the situation.  The ERC found that the failure to mandate an investigation resulted in the Respondent failing to obtain relevant information, which meant he was unable to make an informed decision.  The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was therefore clearly unreasonable.  Consequently, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Adjudicator determined that the Respondent should have indeed pursued an investigation to obtain a minimum level of information and that the failure to do so prevented a fully informed decision from being made on whether or not harassment occurred.  The Adjudicator found that the decision was therefore clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal.

The Adjudicator remitted the matter to a new decision-maker with directions that an investigation be conducted.

Page details

2025-04-30