D-072 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant appealed a decision made by the Adjudication Board who had to reach a decision on 13 allegations that his behaviour was disgraceful. The appeal also concerned the sanction the Adjudication Board imposed, i.e. discharge from the RCMP.

The Appellant's representative submitted the following grounds in support of her appeal. She questioned the Adjudication Board's assessment of witnesses' credibility, deeming it to be tainted with errors in law. The Appellant's representative criticized the Adjudication Board for not having recognized that the Appellant's son had reasons to reject his father, that he embellished his testimony and that he lied. As well, she submitted that the Appellant's ex-wife was motivated by a desire for revenge. The Appellant's representative also claimed that there was no reasonable cause to dismiss the Appellant's statements, especially since his testimony was corroborated by another witness.

The Respondent's representative defended the Adjudication Board's conclusions by emphasizing that the Board had explained why certain aspects of the testimony were credible and others were not.

On May 22, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that, given the severity of the allegations, the Adjudication Board was required to conduct a more thorough analysis of the witnesses' credibility than it seems to have done. However, in spite of everything, the Committee found that, even though the Adjudication Board concluded that the Appellant was completely credible, the actions he admitted to were serious enough to justify the RCMP terminating his employment. Also, the Committee indicated that the fact the Appellant tried to influence his son's behaviour, who was 15 at the time, using his service weapon, was sufficient grounds to end his job. Only evidence indicating that the Appellant's behaviour was largely influenced by factors beyond his control could justify imposing a less severe sanction than discharge or an order to resign.

The Committee recommended that the appeal of the Adjudication Board's findings as to the merit of the allegations be dismissed. As to the sanction, the Committee indicated that the Adjudication Board did not explain in its decision why it refused to give the Appellant the opportunity to resign and that this was not a case where discharge was preferable. The Committee therefore recommended that the appeal opposing the sanction be allowed and that the Commissioner substitute this sanction with an order that the Appellant resign from the RCMP within 14 days, or face discharge.

On September 4, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the External Review Committee's recommendations to dismiss the appeal on the allegations. The Commissioner considered the member's behaviour extremely serious, if not completely unacceptable. With regard to the sanction, the Commissioner maintained that the Adjudication Board had correctly emphasized the severity of the offences and upheld the Board's recommendation that the member be discharged immediately. To support his decision, the Commissioner argued that the public's expectations of police officers require police leaders to treat repetitive behaviour, such as the member displayed, with the greatest severity. Therefore, the Commissioner rejected ERC's recommendation to replace the immediate discharge order with an order to resign within 14 days.