C-157 - Conduct Appeal

The Appellant was the supervisor of a unit. The Complainant entered the unit, and remained in the unit for several months in an administrative role after failing an advanced course. During her time in the unit, the Complainant took issue with a number of the Appellant’s actions, which resulted in a harassment complaint. The complaint led to an investigation and eventually a conduct meeting.

The Respondent ultimately found two allegations established pursuant to section 2.1 (harassment and discrimination) of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed non-financial conduct measures including: a two-year demotion and a removal from a supervisory role, a transfer, and drafting a written report.

The Appellant challenges the Decision by arguing: the Appellant received improper notice regarding the allegations; the Respondent improperly considered two undisclosed statements; the Respondent improperly denied the Appellant’s credibility based on a flawed principle; the Respondent breached the Kienapple principle; the Respondent misapprehended the evidence; and the Respondent imposed excessive conduct measures not in line with the allegations.

The ERC first addressed the grounds of appeal related to procedural fairness. The ERC found that the Appellant had the opportunity to know the case against him and to respond to the Allegations. The Notice of Conduct Meeting, while not to the satisfaction of the Appellant, met the requirements of procedural fairness because it allowed the Appellant to provide a defence.

The ERC then found that the Appellant was barred from raising a challenge to the late disclosure of a victim impact statement and a character reference of the Complainant. The ERC found that the record included references to the disclosure of the statements at the conduct meeting but that there was no evidence that the late disclosure was ever challenged at that time. Without such evidence, the ERC could not find that the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity, as required. As a result, the Appellant effectively waived their right to advance this argument.

The ERC then turned to the alleged error of law regarding the assessment of credibility. The ERC found that the Respondent made an error of law when he denied the Appellant’s credibility based on the Appellant having access to disclosure prior to providing his written submission for the conduct meeting. This amounted to a contravention against the general rule that an accused cannot be denied credibility based on an allegation that their evidence is tailored to the disclosure they received.

The ERC then reviewed the evidence and made a recommendation on what the decision should have been. The ERC found that both allegations should still be established. The ERC then recommended the Appellant retain the following conduct measures: a demotion for two years, with a corresponding limitation on being a supervisor, and a transfer.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed on the basis of an error of law. It recommends that the allegations should still be established and, as result, the Appellant retain his demotion for two years, with a corresponding limitation on being a supervisor, and a transfer.