C-123 - Conduct Authority Decision

This appeal involves a traffic stop conducted by the Appellant where he failed to proceed with an arrest of a driver of a vehicle who had an outstanding warrant against him. He further turned off the in-vehicle camera system before the end of the traffic stop. When questioned by his supervisor, the Appellant stated that he learned of the warrant after the traffic stop and reached out to the driver to tell him to turn himself over to the RCMP detachment at his location. The Respondent first requested a fact-finding exercise regarding the incident. The Appellant’s supervisor reviewed the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) search results which showed that the Appellant actually queried the driver during the traffic stop, not after. A Code of Conduct investigation was mandated. The Respondent found one allegation of negligence of duty established and one allegation of dishonesty. 

The Appellant argues that the decision was based on errors of law and was clearly unreasonable. More particularly, he argues that the conduct process could not proceed because he had already received performance guidance regarding the same incident from his supervisor. He asserts that the Respondent misapplied the test for both neglect of duty and providing false information. Lastly, he states that the Respondent provided insufficient reasons, rendering the decision clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient. First, the Respondent had not addressed the Appellant’s main argument that a Code of Conduct process was precluded. Second, the Respondent did not explain what the legal tests were to establish the allegations and how the evidence met those tests. Therefore, the ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed on that basis. The ERC first found that the Respondent, as the conduct authority, was not precluded from addressing the matter through a conduct process. Recommending the findings that should have been made, the ERC found that Allegation 1 regarding negligence of duty was established. The Appellant’s actions demonstrated a degree of neglect that was not a mere performance issue. The ERC also found that Allegation 2 was established since the evidence showed that the Appellant was untruthful to his supervisor when he indicated that he had queried the driver on CPIC only after the traffic stop had been completed.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed. The ERC further recommends that both allegations be found established and that conduct measures be imposed in the mitigated ranges.