C-090 - Conduct Authority Decision

Prior to the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent applied for an extension of time to impose conduct measures. The Respondent proceeded with the Conduct Meeting before receiving the decision for the extension of time.

The Respondent found that the Appellant had failed to do his required duties, contrary to section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 1) and had failed to conduct himself in a respectful and courteous manner, contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 2). The Respondent imposed conduct measures for both allegations. The Appellant appealed the Decision and the imposition of conduct measures.

The Respondent’s request for an extension of time was subsequently denied. The conduct measures were therefore suspended for being out of time.

The Appellant alleges an apprehension of bias by the Respondent and the Superintendent who ordered the Code of Conduct investigation for Allegation 1. The Appellant argues that the Respondent breached his procedural fairness rights by failing to provide further disclosure ordered at the Conduct Meeting and upon appeal, as ordered by an Adjudicator. The Appellant alleges that the investigation was insufficient and did not question witnesses about his “forcible confinement.” Finally, the Appellant asserts that the findings that the allegations are established are clearly unreasonable because Allegation 1 was barred by policy, the Respondent did not consider the causal connection between his medical connection and his conduct, and the Decision had errors of fact. In support of some of his arguments, the Appellant submitted a copy of the decision to deny the extension of time for the conduct measures.

The Respondent sought and was given permission to respond to “misleading” statements by the Appellant and the issue of the extension of time brought up by the Appellant. The Respondent alleged the extension of time decision was unreasonable. 

The ERC found that the Respondent did not have the authority to appeal the extension of time decision, and the conduct measures were therefore still out of time. The ERC found that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his argument regarding the reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Appellant had failed to raise some of his concerns with bias at the earliest opportunity. The ERC found that the investigation was thorough and the Appellant had failed to raise the issue he wanted further investigation on. The ERC found that the Appellant has not demonstrated how the additional disclosure that was allegedly missing from the Respondent’s disclosure upon appeal was relevant to the conduct proceedings. The ERC found that the Decision was not clearly unreasonable as Allegation 1 was not barred by policy, nor had the Appellant proven that his medical condition had a causal connection to his conduct, and the alleged errors of fact were not clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.