C-132 - Conduct Appeals

The Appellant conducted a traffic stop. During the stop, he detected the smell of marijuana in the vehicle. The driver confirmed that he was in possession of a small amount of marijuana and a vaporizer without a medical licence. The Appellant instructed the driver to dispose of the marijuana and the vaporizer roadside. While the Appellant was preparing a ticket, the driver placed something in the back of his vehicle. The driver informed the Appellant that he had disposed of the marijuana, and the Appellant did not investigate further. The Appellant issued a ticket for speeding, which also listed a warning and a note that there had been marijuana paraphernalia in the vehicle.

The Respondent mandated an investigation, based on a single allegation of failing to investigate a possible impaired driver in the possession of marijuana, contrary to section 4.2 of the Code of Conduct. After the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent concluded that the allegation was established on a balance of probabilities. He imposed a forfeiture of 4 days’ pay.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision, arguing that the Respondent made a number of procedural and substantive errors. The Appellant also requested additional disclosure on appeal.

The ERC found as follows.

The Appellant’s request for the disclosure of his grievance file and his two harassment complaints should be denied, as the requested materials are not relevant to the present appeal.

The Appellant’s submissions regarding harassment, insufficient investigation, investigator bias and delay were outside the scope of this appeal, because these submissions solely related to another conduct appeal.

The Appellant’s arguments that the Respondent made an error of law, and that the Respondent therefore breached the Appellant’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were inadmissible. These were new arguments on appeal, they did not connect to anything the Appellant previously argued, and it would not be in the interests of justice to consider them.

In the Decision, the Respondent referred to the Appellant’s past misconduct as an aggravating factor. However, the Appellant did not establish that he was therefore entitled to the disclosure of his own past conduct record at the Conduct Meeting. The Appellant had not explained why he required the disclosure of documents which he would have already received in the normal course of other conduct proceedings.

The Appellant did not demonstrate that the Respondent’s choice of an appropriate conduct measure was clearly unreasonable. In particular, the Respondent did not err in his assessment of police discretion as a mitigating factor, and the Appellant had not established that there was similar conduct from other members which could have impacted the Respondent’s Decision.

Finally, the Appellant’s argument that the Respondent’s Decision was inconsistent with the stoppage of pay and allowances regime did not succeed, because the conduct measure the Respondent prescribed did not amount to a stoppage of pay and allowances.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.