C-109 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant’s unit was reorganized, and his position was moved to a new Detachment. As a result, the Appellant was required to work out of the new Detachment and commute there at his own expense. Following a review of the Appellant’s performance, the level I conduct authority mandated an investigation into four Code of Conduct allegations, that the Appellant: failed to present himself on duty, contrary to section 4.1 (Allegation1); failed to comply with a direction to report for duty at the new Detachment, contrary to section 3.3 (Allegation 2); failed to comply with a direction to commute to the new Detachment at his own expense, contrary to section 3.3 (Allegation 3); and, provided false or misleading information in an RCMP form, contrary to section 8.1 (Allegation 4).

The Respondent found that Allegations 1 and 4 were not established, but that Allegations 2 and 3 were established. Accordingly, the Respondent imposed conduct measures in the form of a forfeiture of eight hours pay for Allegation 2, and an additional eight hours pay for Allegation 3.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision. He asserted that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent did not address his argument that the one-year limitation period to impose conduct measures, pursuant to ss. 42(2) of the RCMP Act, expired for Allegations 2 and 3 prior to the Conduct Meeting. Additionally, the Appellant argued that the Respondent erred in law by failing to apply the test to establish a breach of section 3.3 of the Code of Conduct, to those two allegations.

The ERC found that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent failed to address a key argument made by the Appellant regarding the applicability of the limitation period found at subsection 42(2) RCMP Act. The ERC further found that the Respondent erred in law by failing to consider whether the directions underlying Allegations 2 and 3 were clear or lawful.

The ERC recommends that pursuant to paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, the appeal be allowed. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner, in making the findings that the conduct authority should have made, find that: (i) the Respondent was authorized, pursuant to ss. 42(2) of the RCMP Act, to impose conduct measures in relation to Allegations 2 and 3 because the date the Decision was issued was within the one-year limitation period, and; (ii) the record is insufficient to establish Allegations 2 and 3. Accordingly, the ERC recommends to the Commissioner that pursuant to paragraph 46.16(3)(b) of the RCMP Act, he rescind the respective conduct measures for Allegation 2 and 3 that were imposed by the Respondent.