C-112 – Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision that he had contravened section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. He alleges that the financial penalty imposed as a corrective measure is excessive and that the Respondent’s decision is therefore clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Appellant had not met his burden of proving that the Respondent made a clearly unreasonable error in imposing a 40-hour financial penalty as a conduct measure. In support of this conclusion, the ERC found that the Respondent explicitly set out the remedial and corrective measures she would consider, took into account the relevant and important aggravating and mitigating factors that were supported by the evidence on record and was not influenced by irrelevant considerations, and that the financial penalty imposed was a measure within the range suggested for the type of offence committed by the Appellant. The ERC also noted that the Respondent’s reasons reflected a full understanding of the evidence before her, of the seriousness of the Appellant’s misconduct and of the circumstances surrounding that misconduct, as well as an appreciation of the applicable legislative requirements and policy considerations regarding the imposition of conduct measures.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.  

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

[Translation]

The Appellant is challenging the Respondent’s decision that he failed to report an incident involving him contrary to section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. Specifically, the Appellant failed to inform his supervisors that he had accidentally hit and damaged another member’s vehicle in the detachment parking lot.

The Appellant submits that the Respondent’s decision is clearly unreasonable. The RCMP External Review Committee recommends that the appeal be dismissed.

The Adjudicator finds that the Appellant has not shown on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s decision contravenes the principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law or is clearly unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed, and the Respondent’s decision is confirmed.