C-133 - Conduct Appeals 

The Appellant’s supervisor noticed that the Appellant was making contradictory records in two different police databases. This led to an investigation of a single allegation of entering inaccurate and misleading traffic enforcement data, contrary to section 8.1 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 7 days’ pay and a written reprimand.

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 the use of police powers, the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and mitigating factors were outside the scope of this appeal, because these submissions solely related to another conduct appeal. Similarly, the Appellant’s arguments about harassment and unlawful retaliation were not relevant to the present appeal.

The Appellant’s new arguments about the sufficiency of the investigation, Conduct Authority bias and delay were inadmissible. These procedural fairness arguments were not raised at the earliest opportunity, and it would not be in the interests of justice to consider them on appeal.

The Appellant’s new argument that the conduct investigator had a closed mind was inadmissible. The Appellant had ample opportunity to present this argument prior to the Conduct Meeting, and it would not be in the interests of justice to consider it on appeal.

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.

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.