C-129 - Conduct Appeals

The Appellant, while conducting traffic enforcement, observed a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction. The Appellant approached an opening on the divided highway, turned on his emergency lights and changed directions to follow the vehicle. In attempting to reach the vehicle, the Appellant drove at high speeds. The Appellant eventually caught up with the speeding vehicle where it was observed continuing to drive above the speed limit.

The Appellant then activated his siren and followed the vehicle closely. When the vehicle pulled over, the Appellant was forced to drive off the shoulder and into the ditch to avoid a collision. The Appellant then repositioned his police vehicle behind the speeding vehicle. The Appellant exited his vehicle and approached the other vehicle. He asked the driver for their licence, opened the driver’s door, took the licence and threw it in the air while shouting at the driver. The Appellant retrieved the licence, and returned to his vehicle. He then issued the driver three tickets.

Some time later, the matter came to the attention of the Respondent, who as the Conduct Authority, mandated a Code of Conduct investigation. It resulted in three alleged breaches. In the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent found the Appellant breached section 7.1 (discreditable conduct), section 4.6 (misuse of a police vehicle), and section 8.1 (failure to complete a required report). For Allegation 1, the Respondent imposed a forfeiture of one day’s pay, for Allegation 2, he imposed a forfeiture of one day’s leave and the requirement to complete several courses, and for Allegation 3, he imposed the loss of one day’s pay and a prohibition from being a pursuit supervisor for one year.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision, arguing that the Respondent made a number of procedural and substantive errors in establishing the contraventions. 

The ERC found that a number of the Appellant’s arguments were not raised at the original Conduct Meeting and as a result did not meet the threshold to be considered on appeal.

On the substantive findings, the ERC found that the Respondent failed to provide a sufficient explanation for how the evidence established Allegation 2 and that the reasons did not respond to the arguments made by the Appellant at the Conduct Meeting. Based on this error, the ERC was required to reassess both Allegations 2 and 3 as they were interrelated.

In reassessing the Appellant’s actions, the ERC found that the evidence did not establish a pursuit occurred, as defined in the policy. Accordingly, the Appellant could not be found to have misused his police vehicle. Additionally, the particulars of the allegation identified the Appellant driving at a high speed, but that this was also allowed by policy when closing the distance with the speeding vehicle. Since the unauthorized pursuit and the speed were the only alleged breaches identified in the particulars, there was no basis to find a contravention of section 4.6. Without the finding of a pursuit in Allegation 2, there was also no basis to find any subsequent reporting error as alleged in Allegation 3. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be partially allowed, and that Allegations 2 and 3 be found not established.