D-062 - Adjudication Board Decision
The Appellant was the subject of three allegations of disgraceful conduct regarding one incident in which he had allegedly driven while impaired, sought to flee a roadside stop, hit another vehicle, conducted a high-speed chase and tried to run away on foot, before eventually stopping. He admitted to the particulars of two allegations. The Adjudication Board found those two allegations to have been established. The Board found the other allegation repetitive and dismissed it. The Board then rejected the Appropriate Officer's request that the Appellant be dismissed, and imposed the following sanction: demotion by one rank, a reprimand, and recommendations for a transfer and for continued counseling. The Appellant appealed the sanction imposed.
On August 5, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that demotion was not an appropriate sanction in the particular circumstances of this case. The strong medical evidence that was before the Board established that the Appellant's misconduct, as well as his alcohol dependency, was to a large degree attributable to Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), from which the Appellant was suffering at the time of the misconduct. There was also impressive evidence before the Board indicating a very positive prognosis for the Appellant's recovery from the alcoholism that was brought about by the PTSD. This evidence provided as much assurance that no such misconduct would recur as could reasonably be expected. In these circumstances, demotion was not an appropriate or just sanction.
The question to be determined was whether the Appellant's misconduct indicated a lack of judgment and leadership such as to make him unable to discharge the duties of one who must serve as a role model for subordinates and must display integrity and strong judgment. In this case, the Appellant's errors in judgment were the result of the PTSD from which he was suffering. His misconduct, including the alcohol abuse and the attempt to escape the police roadblock, appeared to have been directly attributable to PTSD. The uncontroverted evidence of the medical experts at the disciplinary hearing established that the root of the misconduct was an illness. The Board should have considered this fact in its assessment of the Appellant's judgment, leadership ability and other attributes. In giving this evidence consideration, the Committee found that demotion was not an appropriate sanction. The irresponsible behaviour of the Appellant in this matter did not indicate a loss of integrity, judgment or other attributes crucial to his role as a corporal; what it indicated was that the Appellant was ill.
While it was apparent that the Appellant's rehabilitative potential was considered a justification for not ordering him to resign, this did not mean that the next harshest penalty was therefore reasonable. The Committee found that it was not, and that the reality of PTSD had to be acknowledged to have been at the root of the Appellant's misconduct. The Committee recommended that the appeal be allowed, and that the sanction be varied to include a forfeiture of ten days' pay, a reprimand and recommendations for a transfer and continued counseling.
On October 18, 1999, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:
The Commissioner did not agree with the Committee's recommendation. The Commissioner considered this case a very serious breach of the Code of Conduct where in normal circumstances, dismissal would be an appropriate sanction. In the case at hand, the Commissioner was influenced in his decision by the mitigating circumstances of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which could have affected the member's judgment. However, the Commissioner considered that serious criminal behaviour whether on or off duty, is an important element to determine suitability to supervise from the point of view of integrity, credibility and judgment. The Commissioner expressed that a police agency is expected to set high standards and must be seen to exercise those standards appropriately. Taking into account all the mitigating and aggravating factors before him, the Commissioner considered that the sanction of demotion imposed by the Board is appropriate. The Commissioner believes that the sanction imposed balances the interests of the following three constituencies at issue: 1) the member, 2) the organization and, 3) public interest. The Appeal is dismissed. The Commissioner urged the member to continue his efforts at rehabilitation and to share his experiences with others.