C-102 - Conduct

This appeal stems from a conversation on Snapchat that the Appellant had with a Community Police Officer, Ms. A, who was working at the same detachment as the Appellant. During their Snapchat conversation, the Appellant, after seeing pictures of Ms. A, allegedly made unwanted and unsolicited explicit sexual comments to her. Ms. A reported the conversation she had with the Appellant to a coworker, and stated that it had made her feel uncomfortable. This incident was reported to the chain of command, who initiated a Code of Conduct investigation. The Respondent found that the Appellant had engaged in discourteous behaviour and therefore found the allegation established.

The Appellant appealed the Conduct Authority’s (Respondent) decision that found one allegation of discourtesy, pursuant to section 2.1 the Code of Conduct, established. The Appellant argues that the decision breached his right to procedural fairness, since it lacked sufficient details to be capable of appellate review. He further argues that the decision is based on an error of law, because the Respondent did not apply the objective reasonable person test. The Appellant submits that the decision was clearly unreasonable, because the Respondent based his decision on speculation and assumptions, failed to grapple with contradictory evidence, relied on information that was not based on evidence, and failed to consider the context of social media in our age. Lastly, the Appellant challenges the Force’s jurisdiction, since the incident did not have a nexus to the workplace.

The ERC found that the section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct is clear that it applies to interactions between colleagues. Although the Appellant had argued that it was a private conversation, section 2.1 requires that members be courteous in their interactions with colleagues. The Respondent had pointed out that Ms. A was a colleague at the same detachment who was rendered uncomfortable working with the Appellant. The ERC further found that the Respondent did not have to resolve the conflict between the Appellant’s version of events and Ms. A’s since the Appellant admitted telling Ms. A that she was “chesty” and asking her how big her breasts were. The Respondent found the Appellant’s version of the comments were in themselves discourteous. On the issue of assumptions, the ERC found that the Respondent’s findings were inferences of fact which demanded significant deference. It found that there was some evidence to support these findings and refused to interfere. Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent did not commit an error of law and applied the correct legal test. The Appellant was erroneously arguing the legal test applicable to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct while the allegation brought against him was under section 2.1 of the Code of Conduct.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.