C-171 - Conduct (Discipline) Appeals

To obtain statistical credit for issuing a traffic ticket, the Appellant falsely attested to personally serving a ticket that she did not serve. The ticket was processed by the court, but was later nullified as it contained invalid information. As a result, the Appellant faced an allegation for issuing a false police report, contrary to section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct (Allegation 1). During the investigation and based on information submitted by the Appellant about her unit’s administrative assistant’s involvement in the processing of the ticket, the Appellant faced a second section 8.1 allegation for providing false or misleading information during a Code of Conduct investigation (Allegation 2).

The Respondent determined that Allegation 1 was established, but that Allegation 2 was not established. For Allegation 1, the Respondent imposed conduct measures consisting of a reprimand, forfeiture of 20 days of pay, and an ineligibility for promotion for one year.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s finding that Allegation 1 was established and the imposed conduct measures. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the Decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and is clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Appellant was precluded from raising four of her procedural fairness concerns on appeal because she failed to present them at the earliest practical opportunities.

The ERC determined that the decision-making process was not procedurally unfair. More specifically, the ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that the investigation was insufficiently thorough.

The ERC further found that the Respondent’s reasons offered a roadmap from the evidence and submissions to the allegation and conduct, and to the alleged contravention of section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct. Therefore, the Appellant did not establish that the Decision on the allegations was clearly unreasonable.

Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent considered an irrelevant aggravating circumstance in his assessment of the conduct measures; however, the Respondent provided a tenable chain of analysis to support his determination that the conduct measures he imposed were proportionate in the circumstances. As a result, the ERC concluded that the Decision with respect to conduct measures was not clearly unreasonable. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.