C-135 - Conduct Appeals

The Appellant has appealed the decision of the Respondent who found one allegation established under section 7.1 (discreditable conduct) of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed a forfeiture of two days’ pay and additional training.

This appeal involves a motor vehicle collision in which the Appellant was involved while responding to a call from the Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Respondent found that the Appellant drove in a dangerous manner, causing the motor vehicle collision with a civilian vehicle.

In appeal, the Appellant argues that the Respondent had prejudged the outcome and that he unlawfully delegated his decision-making responsibility to the Professional Responsibility Unit (PRU). The Appellant further argues that the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient, illegally delegated his decision-making responsibility, misapplied the law on dangerous driving as well as the test for discreditable conduct. The Appellant further argues that his behaviour should have been dealt with by way of a performance process instead of conduct proceedings. Lastly, the Appellant submits that the Respondent considered an irrelevant aggravating factor.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s reasons were sufficient. He addressed all elements forming the legal test for discreditable conduct. He explained that the Appellant was attending a non-emergency call for service, which was supported by the evidence. The ERC further found that the Appellant could not raise on appeal that the Respondent had pre-judged the matter since it was a procedural fairness matter that the Appellant did not raise at the first opportunity. Further, the Respondent issued a Mandate Letter and Notice of Conduct Meeting with the information he had on hand, including whether the call for service was an emergency. Even though this information was provided to the Appellant, it was provided as something to be proven or disproven at the Conduct Meeting. The ERC further found that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the way the Record of Decision was prepared.

The ERC also found that the Respondent did not err in law when he applied the test for discreditable conduct rather than the test for criminal dangerous driving. He further did not err when he proceeded with a conduct process instead of a performance matter. The ERC further found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable in that he correctly applied the test for discreditable conduct and the evidence in the record. Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent did not err in considering the recommendation for criminal charges as an aggravating factor.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.