D-067 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant admitted to the particulars of three allegations of disgraceful conduct arising out of one incident which included physical assaults against his girlfriend, uttering of a death threat and failing to properly secure and store a service revolver. He had been convicted of one criminal offence regarding the misconduct. The Adjudication Board found the three allegations to have been established. It imposed a sanction of an order to resign, a reprimand and a forfeiture of pay for three days. The Appellant appealed the sanction imposed.

On April 26, 2000, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that an order to resign was not an appropriate sanction in the particular circumstances of this case. The Committee found that the Board failed to justify that the Appellant's evidence was not credible. The Committee found the Board erred in concluding that this case presented evidence of a "cycle of violence". The only conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence was that the misconduct was an isolated incident. The Committee found that the Board erred in its assessment of the similarities of the case with previous cases where a less severe sanction had been imposed by adjudication boards. The Committee found that the sanction disregarded the principle of parity of sanction. The Committee found that, based on the evidence, the Appellant's behaviour was out of character and that the Appellant has a good rehabilitative potential. His misconduct appeared to have been directly influenced by alcohol and depression. In these circumstances, an order to resign was not an appropriate sanction.

The Committee acknowledged that an act of domestic violence by a member of the RCMP has to be treated very seriously. However, not every cases of domestic violence should result in dismissal. On April 26, 2000, 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 continued professional counselling.

On June 21, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner found that the impact of the Appellant's acts deserved greater scrutiny than his state of mind or his credibility. The impact of his actions on the victim, on the integrity of the organization and on the societal expectations around domestic violence deserved more emphasis. The fact that a pattern of violence was shown on the evening in question was more telling than the Appellant's past history.

The Commissioner believes that in meeting public and organizational expectations, citizens would not expect police officers to continue in their careers if they were convicted of assault in domestic situations.

He noted the RCMP's policy of zero tolerance prosecution in domestic violence investigations, which is supported by Crown prosecutors. The Commissioner also stated that a strong message against domestic violence must be sent as it is a scourge in our society.

The Commissioner acknowledged rehabilitation as a hallmark of the discipline process but pointed to deterrence and a strong commitment towards eliminating domestic violence as major considerations in setting the appropriate sanction. He found the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances in this case, noting that the incident involved a prolonged series of attacks not a single spur of the moment lapse of judgement. Abuse of the victim was physical, emotional, and psychological and included a death threat.

The circumstances justify the severest of sanctions under the RCMP Act. The Appellant is ordered to resign within 14 days of receiving this decision, and if he declines to do so voluntarily, he is to be dismissed at that time.