C-152 - Conduct Appeal

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Conduct Authority (Respondent), who found he contravened the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent found that the Appellant breached section 7.1 (Discreditable Conduct) by recklessly disregarding his duties and entering into a drug trafficking investigation without authorization, section 3.3 (Lawful Orders) by disobeying an order not to set up drug meets or buys generally performed by trained undercover operators, and section 7.1 (Discreditable Conduct) by sending a detachment-wide email advising members that a conduct investigation had been initiated against him and that he felt harassed and targeted by his superintendent. The Respondent imposed a forfeiture of 17 days.

First, the Appellant submitted that the decision is procedurally unfair because the Respondent prejudged the matter. Second, the Appellant argued that the decision is based on an error of law because the Respondent improperly relied on a legal test established in case law. Third, the Appellant contended that the decision is clearly unreasonable because the Respondent failed to apply the standard of care, misapprehended the evidence, and provided insufficient reasons. Lastly, the Appellant argued that the decision on conduct measures is also clearly unreasonable because the Respondent failed to properly consider a mitigating factor.

The ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that the decision was procedurally unfair, based on an error of law, or clearly unreasonable. The ERC found that the Appellant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent. With respect to the alleged error of law, the ERC found that the Respondent did not improperly rely on the cited test established in case law in finding one of the allegations established. Turning to the grounds of appeal challenging clearly unreasonable findings, the ERC found that the Respondent did not fail to apply the standard of care, misapprehend the evidence, nor provide insufficient reasons. The ERC also found that the Respondent did not improperly consider a mitigating factor when determining the appropriate conduct measure.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.