C-108 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Respondent found that the Appellant (i) engaged in discreditable conduct by entering an arena on two occasions in contravention of the applicable Covid 19 public health restrictions (Covid Restrictions) (Allegation 1); and (ii) misused his RCMP email account by emailing the Risk Manager of his son’s hockey league questions about the league’s adherence to Covid Restrictions (Allegation 2). The Respondent imposed conduct measures in the form of a forfeiture of two days’ pay for Allegation 1, and a reprimand for Allegation 2.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision. He raised various procedural grounds which included a potential conflict of interest on the part of the Respondent, that the Respondent failed to properly review the record before issuing the decision, and that there were shortcomings in the investigation. He also submitted that the Respondent had improperly assessed the evidence in relation to the two allegations. Similarly, he submitted that the Respondent improperly assessed the evidence when he imposed the conduct measure of a forfeiture of two days pay for Allegation 1. 

The ERC found that the Appellant’s procedural rights were not breached.

Regarding the potential conflict of interest, the ERC concluded that the Appellant failed to raise his concern about the Respondent at the earliest opportunity and was therefore precluded from raising it on appeal. The ERC also found that there was no indication that the Respondent had inadequate time to review the record and issue the decision. Finally, the ERC concluded that the alleged investigative shortcomings did not amount to any breaches of procedural fairness.

The ERC also addressed the Appellant’s arguments regarding the manner in which the Respondent had assessed the evidence in relation to the two allegations. Noting that significant deference was owed to the Respondent’s assessment of the facts, the ERC concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Respondent’s findings, as they were supported by the evidence, and they showed a rational and tenable line of analysis.

Regarding the conduct measure for Allegation 1, the ERC found that the Respondent erroneously considered elements of the allegation as aggravating factors. For this reason, the ERC found that the forfeiture of two days’ pay should be rescinded. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal of the Respondent’s findings that Allegations 1 and 2 are established be dismissed and that those findings be confirmed. The ERC also recommends that the appeal in respect of the conduct measure relating to Allegation 1 be allowed in part. In view of the record, the ERC recommends that the conduct measure for Allegation 1 be reduced to a one day forfeiture of pay. Given that the appeal did not pertain to the conduct measure for Allegation 2, the related measure (reprimand) should not be interfered with.