C-140 - Conduct

The Appellant and another member arrested Mr. X, who was a suspect well-known to police. After obtaining permission to enter his home and change clothes, Mr. X managed to get away (Incident). Later that day, the Appellant sent an email to the incoming shift stating that Mr. X had “snuck out the window and took off” (Email). About two weeks after that, the Appellant opened a Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) file describing the Incident. He noted that he had arrested Mr. X and then allowed him to go inside, following which Mr. X got away through a window. Upon reviewing this PROS entry, a supervisor prepared a Situation Report setting forth his concerns with how the Incident was reported. The supervisor explained that no one reported the Incident to the Operational Communications Centre (OCC) or to their supervisor, or created a file for an “Escape Lawful Custody” situation. Members eventually located and detained Mr. X.

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant “failed to provide complete, accurate and timely accounts pertaining to the carrying out of his responsibilities and the performance of his duties”, in breach of section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation). He specified that the Appellant had omitted to properly report and document a suspect’s escape from lawful custody. Following an investigation and a Conduct Meeting, the Respondent found the Allegation to be established (Decision). He, in turn, imposed a conduct measure consisting of a forfeiture of three days’ pay.

The Appellant took various positions on appeal, including a position he seemingly presented for the first time. However, he raised only one determinative question: did the Respondent provide sufficient reasons in support of the Decision? The ERC focused on this issue. It dealt with the Appellant’s other central concerns when discussing its views on how to dispose of the matter. 

The ERC found that it would be inappropriate to entertain the Appellant’s fresh argument on appeal. The Appellant did not raise this argument (or any related issue or ground) before the Respondent despite being aware of it prior to the Decision. He also did not refer to an exceptional circumstance that prevented him from raising the argument before the Respondent.

The ERC went on to find that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the reasons did not contain a rational or tenable line of analysis. Specifically, the Respondent determined that there was a violation of section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct despite finding that there was no intention to deceive, and overlooking whether there had been recklessness. As there could be no breach of section 8.1 without some deception or recklessness, the reasons were insufficient.

The ERC concluded that the Commissioner should allow the appeal on this basis, and make the finding the Respondent ought to have made, further to paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act. That is, the Appellant violated section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct by recklessly omitting to give complete, accurate, and timely accounts of the Incident. Despite the Appellant’s experience, observed diligence and composure, and obligation to be familiar with reporting expectations, he did not advise the OCC of the Incident, report it on a PROS file or any other file for roughly two weeks, or clarify in the Email that Mr. X was arrested and had escaped custody. The Appellant therefore acted without proper caution or concern for the possible consequences of his actions. As a result, the Appellant recklessly “failed to provide complete, accurate, and timely accounts” of the Incident, contrary to section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct.

Finally, the ERC found that the Commissioner should overturn the Appellant’s conduct measure and impose another (although not necessarily different) conduct measure, further to paragraph 45.16(3) of the RCMP Act. A suitable conduct measure in this matter consisted of a forfeiture of three days’ pay, albeit based on a somewhat different assessment than that of the Respondent.

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner allow the appeal of the Decision on the ground that the Respondent’s reasons are insufficient. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner make the finding the Respondent should have made. That is, the Appellant contravened section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct by recklessly omitting to provide complete, accurate, and timely accounts of the Incident. Lastly, the ERC recommends that the Commissioner impose a conduct measure consisting of a forfeiture of three days’ pay.