C-118 - Conduct Authority Decision

While he was off-duty and suspended with pay, the Appellant spotted a car he had previously seen driving erratically. He followed the car in his own personal truck and stopped behind it at a red light. The driver opened his window as the Appellant both approached and uttered a profanity at him. Just then, an on-duty member pulled in front of the car, partly blocked it, and activated his emergency lights. Before the member could exit his police vehicle and speak to the driver, the car drove forward. The Appellant briefly ran beside the car while repeatedly striking the driver. The car drove past the member’s police vehicle and sped away.

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant had engaged in discreditable conduct, in breach of section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct, by approaching the car and striking its driver (Allegation). The first particulars of the Allegation indicated that the Appellant was suspended at the time of the alleged conduct, and that his Suspension Order barred him from exercising police authority or carrying out police duties. In his submissions to the Respondent, the Appellant asserted that he: was aware of his suspension at the relevant time, knew he could not act as a police officer, believed the Criminal Code allowed him to act as a citizen, and conducted himself in good faith.

The Respondent found that the Allegation was established. Relying expressly on video footage, the member’s statement, and the Appellant’s submissions, he determined that the Appellant’s conduct was inconsistent with the Suspension Order, unnecessary, and ultimately discreditable.

The Appellant presented an appeal. He submits that he did not receive appropriate notice of the case against him. He further contends that the Respondent’s reasons were inadequate.

The ERC found that both of the Appellant’s arguments were unsuccessful.

First, the notice the Appellant received was consistent with legal principles of providing notice in a police misconduct proceeding. The Allegation alleged actions that could be police misconduct, if proven. The particulars were sufficient – they indicated that the conduct took place during a traffic stop, and that the Appellant inserted himself into a policing matter, contrary to the terms of his Suspension Order. Moreover, the notice met the content requirements set forth in the RCMP Conduct Policy. It was also evident from the Appellant’s submissions that he understood the full scope of the Allegation, and that he was able to respond to it with a considered legal argument.

Second, the Respondent’s reasons were adequate. They identified the direct evidence he relied on, applied the relevant legal test, formed a tenable line of analysis, and demonstrated that the Decision was not “clearly irrational”. Although they failed to directly deal with a letter of support from the Appellant’s friend, this did not diminish the reasonableness of the Decision as a whole.  

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal.