C-131 - Conduct Appeals 

While involved in highly contentious divorce proceedings, the Appellant swore an affidavit before the provincial Supreme Court containing false or inaccurate information. This affidavit was in support of an Emergency ex-parte Order filed by the Appellant requiring his daughter returned to his care and having interim sole decision-making and primary residence for his daughter (Emergency Order). The Emergency Order was granted initially, but rescinded once the Supreme Court benefited from evidence of both parents. The Respondent found established one allegation under section 7.1 (discreditable conduct) of the RCMP Code of Conduct for providing false or inaccurate information in a sworn affidavit before the provincial Supreme Court. The Respondent imposed five days’ forfeiture of pay as a conduct measure.

The Appellant argues that the Respondent erred when he determined that the one-year time limit to impose conduct measures had not expired. He further argues that the Respondent breached his right to procedural fairness by not allowing him to make submissions on appropriate conduct measures. The Appellant also submits that the Respondent’s reasons are insufficient because they did not address some of his arguments. Lastly, the Appellant argues that the Respondent’s finding on Allegation 1 is clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Respondent did not err when he found that the one-year time limit to impose conduct measures had not elapsed. None of the individuals earlier involved in this case were conduct authorities under whom the Appellant served. The ERC further found that, although the Respondent erred in law when he found that a stay of proceedings was not an available remedy, it was an inconsequential error of law given his findings that the Appellant’s arguments of harassment and discrimination were being dealt with in other processes. Similarly, the ERC found that the Respondent gave sufficient reasons as to why he would not be addressing the same harassment and discrimination arguments. Regarding the allegation, the ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable because it was supported by the evidence. Lastly, although the Appellant did not address conduct measures at the conduct meeting, it was not a breach of procedural fairness in the circumstances. The Notice of Conduct Meeting informed the Appellant that conduct measures would be taken if the allegation was found established and informed the Appellant that he could address them at the conduct meeting. The Respondent also asked the Appellant and his representative whether they had questions and the representative asked whether there was anything they could add to help the decision-making process. The ERC found that in these circumstances, since the Appellant did not raise the issue of conduct measures notwithstanding the Notice of Conduct Meeting and the questions from the Respondent, he did not raise the issue at the earliest opportunity; therefore waiving his right to raise a breach of procedural fairness on appeal.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be denied.