C-128 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Conduct Authority (Respondent) who found that he contravened section 2.1 of the RMCP Code of Conduct by engaging in discourteous behaviour (Allegation 1) and section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct by behaving in a manner that is likely to discredit the Force (Allegation 2).

The Appellant submitted that the decision on the allegations was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. More particularly, he argued that the Respondent was in a conflict of interest and failed to recuse himself, that he was not provided full disclosure and that the investigation was insufficient. The Appellant also submitted that the decision was clearly unreasonable because it failed to properly address his key arguments. Finally, the Appellant submitted that the conduct measures are clearly unreasonable because the Respondent failed to adequately weigh his mitigating circumstances.

The ERC observed that the Appellant had the opportunity to object to the Respondent as Conduct Authority prior to the Conduct Meeting. However, considering that he failed to raise this procedural issue at the earliest opportunity, the ERC found that the Appellant was precluded from raising it on appeal. The ERC also found that the Appellant had received all of the disclosure he was entitled to and that he did not establish any breaches of procedural fairness. Finally, the ERC found that the Appellant failed to establish that the investigation was insufficiently thorough and that it undermined his right to know the case to be met, or his right to a full and fair opportunity to respond.

In addressing the Appellant’s argument that the decision was clearly unreasonable, the ERC found that, with respect to Allegation 1, discourteous behaviour, the Respondent provided a rational and tenable line of analysis to support the conclusion that the allegation was established. The ERC also found that the Respondent did not commit a reviewable error in his determination of the appropriate conduct measures.

Moving on to Allegation 2, discreditable conduct, the ERC found that the Appellant established that the Respondent failed to address his key arguments. The ERC also observed that the Respondent did not identify or apply the reasonable person test, a mandatory criterion when determining whether a member’s conduct was discreditable. Upon reassessing the allegation of discreditable conduct, the ERC recommends that the Commissioner find that the Appellant’s arguments are unsuccessful and that the allegation is established. The evidence demonstrates that the Appellant’s actions would likely discredit the Force. Finally, with respect to the imposition of conduct measures, in consideration of the mitigating factors, the ERC found that a conduct measure in the lower end of the mitigated range would be appropriate.

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner or the Final Adjudicator dismiss the appeal with respect to Allegation 1 and confirm the imposed conduct measures. That said, the ERC further recommends that the appeal be partially allowed on the basis that the Respondent’s Decision, with respect to Allegation 2, is clearly unreasonable. In turn, the ERC recommends that Allegation 2 be found established and that a conduct measure in the lower end of the mitigated range be imposed on the Appellant.