C-158 - Conduct

The Appellant appealed a decision by a Conduct Authority (Respondent) that she failed to follow the direction of her supervisor during the course of her duties, contrary to section 3.3 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The direction was in regard to obtaining a statement from a child who was part of the Appellant’s investigation. The Appellant’s supervisor issued written directions in the investigation file and met with the Appellant to discuss the investigation. The Appellant ultimately did not interview the child and concluded the investigation.

After finding that the Appellant breached section 3.3 of the Code of Conduct, the Respondent ordered the loss of four days’ pay.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the decision was clearly unreasonable. She submitted that the order was unlawful and that it was not clear that the order was issued to her. She challenged the Respondent’s finding about what transpired during her meeting with her supervisor. She also argued that she had a lawful excuse for not following the order. 

The ERC found that the Appellant’s arguments did not reach the threshold of demonstrating that the Decision was clearly unreasonable. While the Appellant disagreed with the Respondent’s finding that a clear order was issued to her, the Respondent’s finding that her supervisor issued a clear order to the Appellant was supported by the evidence in the record.

When the Respondent made his credibility assessment of both the Appellant’s and her supervisor’s versions of the meeting, he did not omit any crucial evidence or make a clearly unreasonable finding. While the Appellant disagreed with the Respondent’s inference about what transpired at the meeting, the standard of patent unreasonableness precludes a review body from rejecting inferences drawn from the evidence. 

Further, the Respondent’s reasons provided a rational and tenable line of analysis explaining why he found that the order was lawful and that the Appellant did not have a lawful excuse for failing to comply with the order. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.