C-107 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant presented this conduct appeal after the Respondent concluded that he had harassed a colleague, contrary to section 2.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, and that he must in turn give up ten days of pay and five days of leave (Decision). However, the Appellant does not directly dispute the Decision. He instead challenges some prior decisions which resulted in the Decision. They are:

• the Respondent’s decision to hold a conduct proceeding, and thereby ignore an Inspector’s alleged final decision to proceed informally (Decision to Pursue a Conduct Proceeding); and
• an official’s written decision to extend the time limit for imposing conduct measures, as set forth in subsection 42(2) of the RCMP Act (Decision to Extend the Time Limit).

The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal. First, he asserts that the Respondent’s Decision to Pursue a Conduct Proceeding brought about procedural unfairness. Second, he argues that the Decision to Extend the Time Limit brought about procedural unfairness, was an error of law and clearly unreasonable, and led to an abuse of process.

The ERC found that both grounds of appeal should be dismissed.

First, it was not evident how the Respondent’s Decision to Pursue a Conduct Proceeding resulted in procedural unfairness. There was no evidence of an Inspector’s final decision to proceed informally, beyond the Appellant’s bald claim that it existed. The conduct process was preceded by attempts to resolve various issues. But it was unclear who authorized the attempts, and there was no indication that they were meant to preclude a conduct process. There was also no sign that the Appellant was denied proper notice, a chance to be heard, an objective decision maker, or reasons for a decision.

Second, the Decision to Extend the Time Limit was sound. The Appellant failed to demonstrate, and it was otherwise unclear how it brought about procedural unfairness. It also was not apparent what error of law the Appellant was alleging. The decision maker properly applied the key statutory, case law, and RCMP policy authorities. Moreover, the Appellant did not illustrate how the decision, which included many reasons that formed a tenable line of analysis, was clearly unreasonable. Lastly, the Appellant did not meet any part of the test for showing that a delay amounts to an abuse of process.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.