C-151 - Conduct Appeal

Between 2015 and 2023, the Appellant submitted harassment complaints against 16 individuals. None of his complaints succeeded. Various decision-makers found that the Appellant overstated concerns, protested things that did not happen, used the complaint system inappropriately, and lacked credibility. Other individuals recollected the Appellant boasting about presenting unsupported complaints, which sometimes alleged racism, in order to flood the system and damage careers.

On April 3, 2023, the initial conduct authority reviewed all of the Appellant’s complaints and their outcomes together. He detected what he felt was a historic and extended pattern of abuse. As a result of his review, he alleged that the Appellant behaved discreditably, in breach of section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct, by engaging in an “abuse of process” (Allegation). An investigation took place, following which the Appellant made both written and oral submissions to the Respondent.

The Respondent issued a detailed decision. He determined that the Allegation was established. He then dealt with several of the concerns the Appellant raised in his submissions (Decision). The Respondent went on to select a series of conduct measures from a range often associated with harassment-related offences, including a financial penalty of 13 days, to be taken partly as pay, and partly as annual leave. The Appellant appealed the Decision and conduct measures.

The ERC found that none of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal were successful.

Contrary to the Appellant’s claims, the Respondent did not err in law. Specifically, an abuse of process can be discreditable conduct. The Force advised the Appellant of the standard to be met. The Respondent also did not punish the Appellant a second time for the same misconduct.

Moreover, the Appellant’s procedural fairness concerns were unfounded. He did not identify the witnesses he believed were disregarded. The disclosure he received after the investigation was not flawed. There was no right to receive notice of the cases on which the Respondent relied.

The Decision also is not clearly unreasonable. There is no indication that the Respondent failed to assess any of the evidence before him. His reasons were rational, tenable, and based on the record. Furthermore, he respected the statutory limitation period for ordering conduct measures.

Finally, the conduct measures were not unreasonable. It was permissible for the Respondent to select conduct measures from a range of measures typically associated with a different class of misconduct, in the circumstances. Such an approach was consistent with governing authorities.

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal.