D-056 - Adjudication Board Decision

A member was involved in coaching hockey at two posts at which he served over a period of several years and had allowed a number of boys who played on his teams to live at his house, either because they were living on the streets, because their families lived too far out for the boys to attend practices, or because the parents or the local social services had asked him to. Other players on his teams and their friends would also visit at his house, either to see him or the other boys staying there. The member became the subject of four allegations of disgraceful conduct bringing discredit on the Force. Two allegations concerned conduct which had occurred over a period of nearly eight years at two different postings, where the member was alleged to have: condoned the consumption of liquor by minors; made pornographic material readily available to minors living with him or visiting at his house; become inebriated in the presence of minors at his house; engaged in horseplay with male minors, in the course of which backhand strikes to the genital area were sometimes employed. The third allegation concerned the improper storage of his firearm. At the time of a suspension from duties, the member had been accompanied to his residence by his superior, so that he could surrender his revolver. It was alleged that the member's loaded revolver was located unsecured on the floor of his bedroom. The fourth allegation suggested that, while on suspension in relation to this matter, the member allowed two minors who were visiting him to consume alcohol at his residence.

At the adjudication board hearing, the member admitted the allegations and an agreed statement of facts was produced. The statement contained the admission and also revealed that the member had received prior informal discipline for having, on another occasion, allowed minors to consume alcohol and that he had also received a performance record entry for having allowed minors to consume alcohol and watch pornographic films on yet another occasion. The Board concluded that the allegations were established. On sanction, the member tendered into evidence over twenty letters, either from parents, teachers, or other members of the community, expressing gratitude for the member's involvement in the community and his significant efforts in assisting and encouraging the local youth in their education and in sports. The member also tendered a number of his performance evaluations, which described him as the most valued member of his unit and a very competent and tireless investigator. The member provided oral testimony as well.

The Adjudication Board imposed a forfeiture of three days' pay and a reprimand with respect to the third allegation, which concerned the member's improper storage of his service revolver. The Board then considered the three other allegations together and ordered the member to resign. The Board felt that, in light of having been disciplined and having received a performance assessment for similar behaviour, the member certainly knew that his actions were improper. The Board did not believe that the member had accepted responsibility for his actions, or that he was likely to rehabilitate himself. The member appealed the order to resign, arguing that the Board had made several errors in its decision.

In examining the appeal, the External Review Committee found two errors in the Board's decision on sanction. First, the Board had erred in stating that the member's conduct, in serving liquor to minors residing with him, was in violation of the applicable provincial liquor law. Under this law, it is not an infraction for someone to serve liquor to a minor under his control in the minor's house or in a residence. Second, although the Board noted the member's positive community achievements, the Board had granted insufficient attention to this and failed to recognize the member's devotion to his employer and to his community as the strong mitigating factor that it was.

Although the first error led the Board to attribute a greater degree of gravity than it should have to the service of alcohol to minors residing with the member, the Committee felt that this error was not determinative. It remained that the member had breached the liquor law in those instances where he had condoned the consumption of alcohol by boys who were not living with him. It also remained that the member's behaviour represented a contravention of the Code of Conduct and that the member knew, throughout the period of time to which the allegations referred, that his behaviour relating to alcohol was considered as disgraceful conduct by his employer.

The Committee found the Board's second error to be more significant. The Committee noted that, based on the letters of support and the performance evaluations in evidence, the member apparently devoted himself entirely, either in terms of police work or volunteer work, to the communities in which he served. Although the member must be held responsible for certain acts which amounted to disgraceful conduct, his devotion and the measurable good which resulted from it remained and could not be ignored. However, in joining the Force, the member had chosen a governed profession. The concern for the Committee was not so much the gravity of the specific and individual actions, as much as the fact that the member consciously decided to proceed with his behaviour despite having received a clear message from his employer that it was not in accordance with what was considered to be ethically acceptable behaviour for a member of the RCMP. Credit was to be given to the member for his positive achievements in the community; the misconduct was to be viewed in a less serious light because of this. However, even in viewing the member's actions from a less serious point of view, it remained that he had shown himself to be ungovernable. In the end, the Committee was satisfied that the Board's errors were not sufficient to call into question the fairness or appropriateness of the sanction which it imposed. On May 14, 1998, the Committee thus recommended that the appeal be denied.

On August 27, 1998, the Commissioner agreed with ERC and he confirmed the order to resign.