C-084 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Commanding Officer, “X” Division, RCMP conduct authority, (Respondent) who found one allegation of harassment established, contrary to section 2.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

This appeal involves incidents that took place while the Appellant was the complainant’s supervisor. Workplace conflict arose between the complainant and her three supervisors, the Appellant being her direct supervisor. The complainant filed a harassment complaint shy of one day of the one-year time limit to do so. In her harassment complaint, the complainant listed six incidents which she alleged were harassment. An investigation was mandated in which the Appellant, the complainant and five other witnesses were interviewed. These proceedings took over four years to complete. The Respondent requested that the time limit to impose conduct measures be extended; the request was denied. Nonetheless, the Respondent proceeded with a conduct meeting where she found four of the incidents were harassment.

The Appellant appeals the decision arguing that the Respondent lacked jurisdiction for proceeding with a conduct meeting since the one-year time limit for filing a harassment complaint had passed. He further argued that the Respondent misapplied the definition of harassment and based her findings solely on the complainant’s subjective point of view. Lastly, the Appellant claims that the proceedings violated his right to procedural fairness because the complainant modified her complaint after the Appellant’s interview and evidence to the investigators and because the proceedings took over four years.

The ERC found that the Respondent did not lack jurisdiction to render a decision on the allegation. The harassment complaint was filed within a year of the last incident, which was supported by the evidence. Further, case law has established that a conduct authority can, even if the time limit to impose conduct measures has elapsed, render a decision on the allegation of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The ERC further found that the Respondent had not misapplied the definition of harassment and explained why a reasonable person would have known that the conduct was offensive. Lastly, there was no evidence that the Appellant’s right to procedural fairness was breached since he was provided with several opportunities to review the evidence and provided multiple submissions. Further, although the length of the proceedings was unreasonable, the Appellant did not provide evidence of such prejudice that the ERC could conclude that there was an abuse of process. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 

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

The Appellant was alleged to have harassed a member he was supervising. After an investigation was conducted, the Respondent ordered the Appellant to attend a Conduct Meeting. After receiving submissions prior and during the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent established the allegation of harassment. As the statutory time limitation period for imposing conduct measures had expired, no conduct measures were imposed.

This appeal was filed to dispute the finding. The matter was referred to the ERC for findings and recommendations. It recommended for the appeal to 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 dismisses the appeal.