C-115 – Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant was instructed to update an exhibit report. When she could not locate the exhibits at her detachment, she assumed that the exhibits had been returned to their owner. The Appellant updated the exhibit report accordingly. The exhibits were later found at the detachment. The Respondent initiated a conduct process against the Appellant. After the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent concluded that the Appellant contravened section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct when she knowingly filed a false police report.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision. She argued that the decision to pursue a conduct process was inappropriate. The Appellant also submitted that the Respondent’s decision to complete the process without mandating an investigation breached her right to be heard, and that the Respondent had misinterpreted evidence about the Appellant’s knowledge and intent.

The ERC found that the Respondent did not err in proceeding with a conduct process. Pursuant to the RCMP Act, the Respondent had the identity of the Appellant and the appearance that the Appellant had breached the RCMP Code of Conduct.

The ERC found that the Appellant’s right to be heard had been respected. The Appellant was allowed to fully participate in the Conduct Meeting and to provide her evidence to the Respondent for consideration. The RCMP Act and the RCMP conduct policy only required the Respondent to mandate an investigation where initial information was insufficient to issue a decision. The Respondent had sufficient information, and the Appellant’s submissions were considered in the Respondent’s decision.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable because the findings therein were contradictory. The Respondent found the Appellant to be honest and upfront and accepted that she had made an assumption about the location of the exhibits. Elsewhere in the Respondent’s decision, the Respondent concluded that the Appellant intentionally deceived her supervisors about the location of the exhibits.

Having established that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable, the ERC recommended the finding that the decision-maker should have made. The ERC emphasized that the allegation against the Appellant was that she knowingly filed a false police report. The ERC observed that based on the wording in the allegation, it would be procedurally unfair to consider whether the Appellant’s conduct was reckless or negligent. The ERC accepted the Appellant’s submission that she had made an assumption based on her knowledge at the time, and that she did not intend to deceive when she filed the report. The ERC concluded that the Appellant had not knowingly filed a false police report, and that the allegation was not established.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the basis that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner make the findings that, in his opinion, the Respondent should have made. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner find that the allegation is not established and that the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent should be rescinded.