C-083 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Conduct Authority (Respondent) who found an allegation of discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct established. He also challenged the conduct measures imposed, consisting of a written reprimand and a forfeiture of two days’ pay.

The alleged misconduct involves improper conduct during the arrest of a female individual during the execution of an arrest warrant. The Appellant was alleged to have refused the female’s request to get dressed after he handcuffed her.

The Appellant argued that the decision was procedurally unfair due to evidence of negative bias towards him. He also argued that the decision was based on an error of law since the allegation was found to be established despite the absence of policy outlining specific obligations during the arrest of individuals. The Appellant argued that the decision was clearly unreasonable since the Respondent breached the rule against double jeopardy, made a finding despite the absence of a complaint and key testimonies, based his finding on an erroneous concept of being “partially nude” and erred in his appreciation of the testimonial and documentary evidence. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent erred in his consideration of aggravating factors and imposed disproportionate conduct measures.

The ERC found that the Appellant’s claim of negative bias was speculative and unsubstantiated. The ERC determined that the Respondent did not err in law in his assessment of the proper framework to establish a contravention of section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. The ERC also found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable as the evidence does not support a double jeopardy argument, the Respondent correctly applied the reasonable person test, the Respondent’s reasoning with regard to the female individual being “partially nude” was not clearly unreasonable, and the Respondent did not commit any reviewable errors in his appreciation of the testimonial and documentary evidence. With respect to conduct measures, the ERC found that those imposed on the Appellant do not warrant intervention on appeal.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

Relevant to this appeal, the Respondent established a single allegation of discreditable conduct against the Appellant, for failing to give a person the opportunity to put clothing on after being arrested. The Respondent imposed conduct measures consisting of the forfeiture of two days of pay for this allegation.

This appeal was filed to dispute the finding. The matter was referred to the ERC for findings and recommendations. The Chair of the ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The adjudicator finds that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision contravenes the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law or is clearly unreasonable. As a result, the adjudicator confirms the Respondent’s decision and dismissed the appeal.