D-055 - Adjudication Board Decision

A member was the subject of five allegations that he had conducted himself disgracefully by inappropriately touching five female subordinates. Four of the allegations were found to be established and the Adjudication Board imposed an order to resign as the sanction. The member appealed the finding on the first allegation as well as the sanction.

The first allegation was that the Appellant had "grabbed" the upper thigh of an auxiliary constable while she was getting her flashlight out of a patrol car after she and the member had attended at a scene. The member denied that the incident had happened and testified to that effect before the Board. His version was that, round the time that the incident had allegedly occurred, he had been in his office, talking on the telephone with his common law spouse. The member's common law spouse also testified before the Board, relating a telephone conversation she had had with the member on the relevant night. She indicated that, while they were on the telephone, the auxiliary constable had come into the member's office to get the keys to the car, and had then returned them; the member's spouse indicated that she had overheard this exchange in the background to the telephone call.

In appealing the Board's decision on the first allegation, the member argued that the Board's findings were unreasonable. He submitted firstly that the Board had ignored evidence corroborative of his version of events. This evidence was comprised of documents that were consistent with the member's and his spouse's testimony; for example, one document showed that there had been a telephone call from the detachment to the member's spouse's workplace shortly before the alleged incident happened.

The Committee first noted that there had been no mention of the documentary evidence in the Board's reasons. However, after canvassing the relevant caselaw, the Committee determined that there was no basis on which to find that the Board had ignored the documentary evidence in coming to its conclusion on the allegation; the documentary evidence was not determinative in any way and there was no obligation on the Board to address it.

The member also attacked the Board's finding that the alleged victim was more credible than he and his spouse with regard to the first allegation. The Committee found that the Board's reasons for its credibility determinations were supportable in the record, and that there had been no error with regard to the Board's appreciation of the evidence of the alleged victim and of the member's spouse. With regard to the member's evidence, however, the Board had simply stated that it found his evidence "self-serving" and gave no further reason for rejecting his testimony. The Committee determined that it was incumbent on boards to make important credibility findings in clear and unmistakable terms. In this case, where there were clear credibility findings with regard to the other evidence, there was no determinative error arising from the "self-serving" comment which would justify allowing the appeal. However, the Committee noted that, in the future, boards should be careful to make their credibility determinations clear. The Committee recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal against the finding on the first allegation.

With regard to the sanction imposed, the member submitted that his conduct, while serious, had not been as egregious as had been attested to by one of the complainants. He submitted that the Board had erred in finding this complainant to be credible, and had ignored evidence before it which should have convinced the Board that she had a motive for getting back at the member and had therefore exaggerated the gravity of his conduct. The member submitted that this exaggerated testimony had been what had led the Board, incorrectly, to order him to resign.

The Committee examined the Board's determination on the appropriate sanction. The Board had explicitly rejected the member's argument regarding the complainant's motive, and had provided its reasons for accepting her evidence. The Committee found no determinative error in the Board's appreciation of the evidence or of the seriousness of the member's conduct.

The member also argued that the Board had made an erroneous finding for which there was no evidence when it found that he had a "character flaw" which "targeted female employees". The member submitted that such a determination would require psycho-medical evidence, of which there was none at the hearing. The Committee determined that this statement had simply been a finding regarding the Board's view of the member's strength of character and his potential for rehabilitation, in light of the duration and nature of the conduct; such a finding was within the purview of the Board and there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for it. The Committee found no error on which to recommend that the Board had erred in its appreciation of the severity of the member's conduct, and determined that the Board had been entitled to treat the member's conduct as justifying the RCMP's termination of the employment relationship. On March 26, 1998, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal.

On July 21, 1998, the Commissioner accepted the Committee's recommendations. He denied the appeal and confirmed the order to resign.