C-124 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant was an instructor at an RCMP training facility. The Appellant developed a relationship with an individual undergoing training at that facility. Their interactions became more social and, eventually, intimate prior to the individual completing their training. The matter was investigated.

Following a conduct meeting, the Respondent concluded that the Appellant had engaged in discreditable conduct by having an improper relationship with the individual. The Respondent also found that the Appellant’s actions were contrary to an order contained in a document signed by the Appellant. The Respondent imposed conduct measures that included a demotion in rank.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision to impose the demotion in rank. The Appellant asserted that this Decision was clearly unreasonable on the following grounds:

    -     the Respondent’s reasons lacked a rational chain of analysis explaining why a demotion in rank was necessary;

    -     the Respondent’s reasons were not responsive to a central argument made by the Appellant at the conduct meeting;

    -     the Respondent improperly ignored the parity principle, which is a necessary consideration in assessing appropriate conduct measures; and,

    -     the Respondent relied on two flawed aggravating factors, and failed to consider a number of relevant mitigating factors.

The ERC determined that the Appellant’s grounds of appeal were unsuccessful. The Respondent’s reasons provided a rational chain of analysis explaining why a demotion in rank was necessary in the circumstances. Those reasons were also responsive to a central argument made by the Appellant during conduct proceedings. Further, the Respondent did not ignore the parity principle, which flows from the philosophy that similar misconduct should be treated in similar fashion.

The ERC also found that while the Respondent had improperly relied on one aggravating factor, this was not a determinative error warranting intervention on appeal. The ERC further found that the Respondent had not made a clearly unreasonable Decision owing to a failure to consider relevant mitigating factors.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed and that the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent be confirmed.