D-054 - Adjudication Board Decision

A member was the subject of three allegations of disgraceful conduct relating to an alleged fraud using an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) at a bank. At the hearing, before the allegations were read, the member brought a motion to quash the allegations on the basis that the Appropriate Officer had not complied with the statutory limitation period in subsection 43(8) of the RCMP Act, which provides that no disciplinary hearing may be initiated more than one year after the alleged contravention and the identity of the member became known to the Appropriate Officer. The board allowed the motion and quashed the allegations.

The Appropriate Officer appealed the decision of the board. He submitted that the board had erred in its interpretation of subsection 43(8) and had not given the proper weight to the certificate he had filed pursuant to subsection43(9) of the RCMP Act, which indicates that a certificate filed by the Appropriate Officer as to the time he had knowledge of alleged contraventions was, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the time certified.

The Committee first examined the member's objection to the appeal. The member argued that the Appropriate Officer had no right to appeal the decision of the board, because the decision had been on a preliminary matter and there was no right to appeal such a decision, the decision not being a determination of whether the allegations had been established. The Committee found that the Appropriate Officer did have the right to appeal the decision of the board The intent of the RCMP Act was clearly to allow an appeal from such a decision. A dismissal of an allegation was deemed by the Act to be a finding that the allegation was not established; therefore, there was an appeal right.

On the main question in the appeal, whether the limitation period had been violated, the Committee determined that there would be sufficient knowledge for the limitation period in subsection 43(8) to begin to run when the Appropriate Officer had been informed of the principal information regarding the alleged contravention and the identity of the member. This determination would have to be made by an adjudication board on the basis of the record in each case.

In this case, the certificate filed by the Appropriate Officer under subsection 43(9) raised a presumption that the limitation period had been respected. However, the member had filed an affidavit from the former CO of the division, who attested to the fact that, well over a year before the disciplinary hearing was initiated, he had knowledge of the alleged contraventions such that he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the allegations were true. This evidence was contrary to the certificate; the Committee determined that the board had been correct to find that this displaced the presumption raised by the Appropriate Officer's certificate. The Committee found that the board's weighing of the evidence had been correct, and that the former CO, as the Appropriate Officer, had knowledge of the alleged contraventions and the identity of the member such that the one-year period had expired before the current CO, as Appropriate Officer, initiated the hearing. On January 8, 1998, the Committee recommended that the Appropriate Officer's appeal be denied.

On June 12, 1998, the Commissioner accepted the Committee's recommendation and denied the Appropriate Officer's appeal.