C-154 - Conduct Appeal

The Appellant arrested Mr. X. Subsequently, after Mr. X. served a sentence for firearms offences, the Appellant developed a friendship with him. Two years later, Mr. X’s former spouse reported to the RCMP that the Appellant and Mr. X were involved in a sexual relationship, and alleged that Mr. X assisted the Appellant with a child abduction investigation. As a result, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant had breached the RCMP Code of Conduct by: pursuing a relationship with Mr. X that amounted to a conflict of interest, contrary to section 6.1 (Allegation 1); misusing her RCMP BlackBerry to communicate with Mr. X for a non-duty related purpose contrary to section 4.6 (Allegation 2); inappropriately accessing RCMP electronic information systems for a non-duty related purpose contrary to section 4.6 (Allegation 3); disclosing sensitive information to an unauthorized individual contrary to section 9.1 (Allegation 4); and, not complying with a lawful order provided by her line officer, contrary to section 3.3 (Allegation 5).

Following an investigation and a Conduct Meeting, the Respondent concluded that Allegations 1, 2 and 3 were established (Decision). The Respondent went on to impose conduct measures. She ordered a reprimand, training and a total forfeiture of 15 days of pay.

The Appellant appeals both the Decision and the conduct measures. The Appellant also asserts that the one-year limitation period to impose conduct measures under subsection 42(2) of the RCMP Act was exceeded in respect to Allegations 1-5. She believes this to be the case despite an extension of that limitation period having been granted pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act.

The ERC found that the subsection 42(2) limitation period was not exceeded for Allegations 1-4. The ERC explained that the date on which the applicable limitation period commences is determined by considering when a conduct authority in the subject member’s chain of command gained the requisite knowledge to initiate a Code of Conduct investigation. Consequently, knowledge of the allegations held by the Professional Standards Unit is not determinative to the date on which the limitation period commences.

In addition, the ERC found that the limitation period set out in subsection 42(2) pertains to the imposition of conduct measures, and not whether a conduct authority may make findings about Code of Conduct allegations. Therefore, notwithstanding the limitation period being expired for Allegation 5, the Respondent was obligated to make findings to determine whether the allegation was established and offer the Appellant the opportunity to respond to the allegation.

The ERC further found that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent omitted to address key issues and central arguments raised by the Appellant in her Conduct Meeting submission. The ERC concluded that the Commissioner should allow the appeal on this basis and make the findings the Respondent ought to have made, further to paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, as follows:

    - First, the Appellant’s relationship with Mr. X was limited to a friendship. Nevertheless, as an individual she had arrested, their subsequent friendship amounted to a conflict of interest contrary to section 6.1 (Allegation 1).

    - Second, the Appellant’s excessive communications with Mr. X on her RCMP BlackBerry were not duty related and therefore a misuse of RCMP equipment contrary to section 4.6 (Allegation 2).

    - Third, the Appellant’s police database queries were not duty-related and therefore amounted to a misuse of RCMP information systems contrary to section 4.6 (Allegation 3).

    - Fourth, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant disclosed sensitive information to an unauthorized individual, therefore she did not contravene section 9.1 (Allegation 4).

    - Fifth, the evidence of the alleged direction issued to the Appellant was not clear, therefore, the allegation that she failed to follow a lawful order contrary to section 3.3 was not established (Allegation 5).

    - Finally, the ERC found that further to paragraph 45.16(3) of the RCMP Act, the Commissioner should impose other conduct measures, based on a different analysis than the Respondent. Suitable conduct measures in this matter consisted of a forfeiture of two days of pay for Allegation 1; one day of pay for Allegation 2; and one day of pay for Allegation 3. 

The ERC recommends that, pursuant to paragraphs 45.16(2)(b) and 45.16(3)(b) of the RCMP Act, the appeal be allowed. The ERC further recommends that the Commissioner find that the subsection 42(2) limitation period was not exceeded for Allegations 1-4; that Allegations 1-3 are established; that Allegations 4-5 are not established; and, that the Appellant receive conduct measures, based on a different analysis, as follows: Allegation 1: two days of pay; Allegation 2: one day of pay; and Allegation 3: one day of pay.