C-177 - Conduct (Discipline) Appeals

The RCMP recovered a stolen vehicle and the Appellant was tasked with staying with the vehicle while awaiting a tow truck to arrive. The Appellant then received a direction from his Supervisor stating that it was not necessary to follow the tow truck, which was transporting the recovered vehicle, and for the Appellant to return to the policing jurisdiction. The Appellant disobeyed his Supervisor’s direction. Thereafter, a Conduct Authority (Respondent) made a Decision, which found that the Appellant had disobeyed direction provided by his Supervisor, contrary to section 3.3 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed a conduct measure of a forfeiture of two days’ pay.

On appeal, the Appellant made the following arguments: (1) the Respondent made an error of fact in his Decision on the allegation, (2) the Respondent did not fairly address the Appellant’s reasons for not complying with his Supervisor’s order, (3) the Respondent’s Decision on conduct measures was not procedurally fair because the Respondent imposed a conduct measure that he allegedly said that he would not consider (4) the Respondent did not consider a mitigating factor that was raised by the Appellant, and (5) the Respondent improperly weighed two aggravating factors. 

The ERC found that the Respondent did not make an error of fact when he found that no members of the Detachment were aware of the Appellant’s location until he was well outside the jurisdiction. The Respondent provided a rational and tenable line of analysis, supported by the evidence and the principles of the RCMP Conduct Measures Guide, when he explained why he rejected the Appellant’s reasons for not complying with his Supervisor’s order.

Further, the Appellant did not show that the Decision was procedurally unfair. The Appellant did not establish that the Respondent made clear and unambiguous representations about not considering any pay-related conduct measures. 

While the Respondent did not expressly consider one mitigating factor that was raised by the Appellant, the ERC found that that this factor was considered and accepted in the Respondent’s overall finding on conduct measures. Regarding the Appellant’s argument about the weight afforded to aggravating factors, the ERC reiterated that a reviewing body is deferential to a Conduct Authority’s weighing of aggravating factors.   

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.