D-060 - Adjudication Board Decision

The appellant was said to have displayed disgraceful conduct for having played in hockey games while she was on sick leave for an injury to her neck. She admitted having played hockey while she was on sick leave, but did not agree that this represented disgraceful conduct. The Adjudication Board found that the allegation was established and imposed a reprimand and a forfeiture of three days' pay. The appeal concerned both the decision that the appellant contravened the Code of Conduct and the sanction.

The appellant claimed that the Adjudication Board had erred in finding that she had abused her sick leave when the evidence did not support such a finding. She indicated that the Board substituted its opinion for that of the doctors who had declared her unable to fulfil her duties as a peace officer. The appellant also claimed that the Board had reversed the burden of proof when it indicated that she should have provided explanations about the nature of her injury.

The Committee first noted that the wording of the allegation was limited strictly to the fact that the appellant had played in hockey games while she was on sick leave. Nothing had been said about obtaining leave under false pretenses or about not returning to work more quickly. The Committee also found that the evidence submitted at the hearing did not enable the Board to doubt the appellant's state of health or her honesty. Nevertheless, the Committee found that there was sufficient evidence to support a decision that the conduct was disgraceful. In particular, the Committee said that the appellant had not used her leave in a responsible manner. The Committee indicated that the appellant had an obligation to check with her doctors whether playing hockey might aggravate her condition. Lastly, concerning the reversal of the burden of proof, the Committee found that it was the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate that playing hockey was not incompatible with her injury.

As for the sanction, the appellant claimed that the Adjudication Board had not indicated the criteria justifying the sanction imposed. She said that the sanction was excessive when compared with penalties imposed by other adjudication boards. The Committee found that the decision concerning the sanction was fraught with errors. It indicated that the Board had erred in considering the fact that the appellant had paramedical training as an aggravating circumstance. The Committee also found that the Board had imposed a more severe sanction because it believed that the appellant had abused her sick leave. Yet there was no evidence that the appellant had exhibited bad faith. Lastly, the Committee found that the sanction was not equitable when compared with penalties imposed by other boards.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal of the decision on the merits of the allegation of disgraceful conduct, and allow the appeal of the sanction by amending it to a forfeiture of one day's pay and a reprimand.

The Commissioner has since rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee ("the Committee"), maintaining that the appellant's conduct was disgraceful. With regard to the severity of the sanction, the Commissioner took into consideration the lack of dishonesty on the part of the appellant. He agreed with the sanction recommended by the Committee, namely a reprimand and a forfeiture of one day's pay. He dismissed the appeal as to the allegation of disgraceful conduct and allowed the appeal as to the sanction.