C-103 - Conduct

The Appellant appealed the decision of the [District Commander],  that he failed to execute his duty as a supervisor properly and thereby, contravened section 4.2 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed a forfeiture of two days’ pay and a remedial measure of successfully completing a management development program.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that there was bias in pursuing a conduct investigation. He also argued that the Respondent applied subjective reasoning in her decision, making it clearly unreasonable. The Respondent appeared to allege that the investigation was not sufficiently thorough. Finally, the Appellant argued that the conduct measures imposed are clearly unreasonable, and he ought to have been given an option to accept a forfeiture of pay or leave.

The Appellant also submitted the Respondent’s decision in a related matter, as new evidence. He argued that the outcome of that matter should be determinative of the outcome in his own Code of Conduct process.

The New Evidence is Inadmissible:

The ERC determined that the new evidence was inadmissible, as the Respondent’s decision in the related matter was internally and overarchingly consistent. Because that new evidence could not reasonably be expected to affect the decision under appeal, it failed the Supreme Court of Canada’s test for admissibility.

There is No Evidence of Bias:

The Appellant did not allege bias on behalf of the decision maker. Instead, he argued that the member responsible for initiating the Code of Conduct process was biased. He offered insufficient rationale or evidence, however, to explain any bias on the initiating member’s part. The ERC found that the Appellant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Investigation was Sufficiently Thorough:

The ERC found that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the scope of the investigation undermined his right to know the case to be met, or his right to a full and fair opportunity to respond. As the Federal Court of Appeal has stated, a decision maker must balance a complainant’s interest in the fullest possible investigation with the demands of administrative efficacy. The Appellant did not establish how another member’s purported opinion would have made a difference in his case.

There was No Error of Law:

The ERC found that, though the Respondent stated an older test, she turned her mind to the relevant factors to determine a breach of section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct. The Respondent found an element of wilfulness to the conduct that distinguished it from a performance issue. Therefore, the ERC determined that there was no error of law.

The Decision is Not Clearly Unreasonable:

The ERC found that the Appellant misunderstood the scope of the allegation. The Appellant argued that the one action that he took was correct and sufficient. The Respondent found that the Appellant failed to undertake the expected follow-up actions that a supervisor should take in such circumstances. Therefore, the ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that the Decision is clearly unreasonable.

The Imposed Conduct Measures Were Not Clearly Unreasonable:

The ERC found that Respondent provided a roadmap to understanding how she arrived at the minimum penalty within the normal range for carelessly or recklessly disregarding duty, as set out in the Conduct Measures Guide.

On the issue of the option for forfeiture of leave in lieu of pay, the ERC found that the Respondent had already determined that issue, which was within her discretion to do so, and that the member is not entitled to an option.

Therefore, the ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that the imposed conduct measures are clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.