C-091 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s Decision who found one allegation established pursuant to section 4.6 – Use of equipment and property - Members use government-issued, equipment and property for authorized purposes and activities of the Code of Conduct. In addition to the McNeil disclosure requirement, the Respondent gave the Appellant a conduct measure of 5 days forfeiture of pay.

The Appellant ran a red light he was facing at a busy intersection while in emergency response to a potential serious crime scene. The Appellant collided with a taxi which sent the taxi in a direction that caused a collision with a third vehicle. Three of the drivers, including the Appellant were injured. A civil action was brought against the Crown and a complaint was filed with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC).

After a conduct meeting was held, the Respondent found that the allegation was established, based on the Appellant’s admission of not coming to a complete stop and on the Division’s Emergency Vehicle Operations Manual (EVO policy).   

The Appellant appealed the finding and the conduct measures. The Appellant submitted that there is no requirement under the province Motor Vehicle Act to stop his vehicle when facing a red light at an intersection if an emergency situation is in progress. The Appellant made no reference to the EVO Regulations which indicate that he must stop when facing a red light at an intersection, even during an emergency call and the driver operating the vehicle is en route. The Appellant submitted that the taxi driver was at fault and was found to be 100% responsible by a provincial insurance corporation.

The Appellant further argued that some of the aggravating factors referred to by the Respondent should not have been considered.

The ERC upheld the Decision in terms of the reasonableness of the finding that a Code of Conduct violation had been established. The ERC found that the finding of the liability of the insurance company and the submission made regarding other law was irrelevant. The Appellant was obliged to follow the provisions of the EVO Regulations and policies and failed to do so.

In respect to the conduct measures, three of the aggravating factors listed by the Respondent, specifically the Appellant’s failure to cooperate with investigators; his arguments made in his defence and reporting other members who failed to stop on the occasion were found to be clearly unreasonable by the ERC and should not have been considered when deciding an appropriate conduct measure. The Appellant had the right to remain silent and had every right to present a defence.

That said, after a careful review of the evidence and the Conduct Measures Guide, the ERC found that the conduct measure of a forfeiture of five days’ pay was the appropriate conduct measure in the circumstances.  

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed, but that the finding and conduct measure remain the same.