D-058 - Adjudication Board Decision
The member was the subject of two allegations of disgraceful conduct regarding his involvement with a protected witness to whom he had been assigned as "handler". He admitted having had a sexual relationship with the witness for a period of over four months while he had been her handler. The adjudication board found one allegation of disgraceful conduct to have been established and imposed the following sanction: demotion by one rank, forfeiture of ten days' pay, a reprimand, and a recommendation for transfer. He appealed the sanction.
The member argued that the seriousness of the sanction had been dependent on the board's determination that the protected witness had been vulnerable at the time of the relationship, and submitted that the board had erred in its assessment of the witness' vulnerability. He argued that the board had erred by not admitting the expert psychological evidence offered to it.
The Committee found that the board had been wrong to refuse to hear the expert evidence and wrong to rely on the knowledge and experience of the board members to make such a determination. However, the Committee found that the seriousness of the sanction had clearly not been dependent on the board's finding that the witness had been vulnerable, and therefore did not recommend that this ground of appeal be allowed.
The member submitted that the board, in determining that his capacity to perform his duties had been compromised to the extent that a demotion was appropriate, had failed to consider evidence of his performance during the intervening period between the time of the misconduct and the disciplinary hearing. The Committee found that this evidence, which the board had explicitly considered, did not indicate that the board's decision was unreasonable. The Committee found no error in the board's determination that the member's competence level had been compromised by his actions.
The member argued that demotion was too harsh to be appropriate to the circumstances of his case, considering the inappropriate actions of others, past cases imposing demotion, and the fact that his honesty and integrity had been found not to have been compromised. He submitted that demotion was an arbitrary sanction that, when applied to him, amounted in effect to a double demotion. The Committee found that demotion was an appropriate and reasonable sanction in this case. It found that the board had provided adequate reasons for its determination that the Appellant's ability to function at his level of responsibility had been compromised such that a demotion was reasonable.
On October 28, 1998, the Committee did recommend that the forfeiture of ten days' pay be eliminated from the sanction. It found that demotion was an adequate sanction with which to address the relevant concerns in this case and that the forfeiture of pay was therefore unnecessary in the circumstances.
On January 5, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:
The Commissioner does not find inconsistent that both a demotion and a forfeiture of pay are imposed where the Board deems it appropriate and he finds the Appellant's conduct so irresponsible that he would have supported a direction of dismissal. To justify his position, the Commissioner points out that the Appellant was entrusted with the protection of a vulnerable person whose life was in danger and that he has by his conduct seriously compromised the safety of the Complainant. The Commissioner concludes that the Appellant's conduct was so reprehensible that his integrity was destroyed and states that the length of time of the Appellant's misconduct shows a total disregard for the values of the Force. The Commissioner finally expresses concerns in regard to the lack of appropriate supervision in this case and he comments on the impact of the Appellant's conduct on the Witness Protection Program which, to his view, was harmed by the Appellant's disgraceful conduct.