D-076 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant had shared confidential documents with an author about police strategies to investigate Organized Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs). The documents were later reproduced in a book which accused the RCMP in engaging in "dirty tricks" in order to obtain additional funding from governments for the purpose of investigating OMGs.

The Appellant believed that the RCMP could have more effectively investigated OMGs within existing budgets simply by realigning existing resources. He met with his commanding officer to discuss a proposal to that effect but his proposal was rejected. It was then that he turned to the author who was writing the book on OMGs and shared information with him that he hoped would expose how the law enforcement community, through national and provincial strategies on OMGs, was putting public safety at risk and engaging in unethical practices. Specifically, the Appellant was critical of a communication plan which he considered had been designed "to scare the public to force the Government to give us more money". The Appellant defended his actions as being designed to draw attention to a matter of legitimate public concern. He also maintained that the documents which he disclosed did not contain confidential information, in that they did not reveal anything about ongoing operations or intelligence-gathering activities. An Adjudication Board concluded that, because the Appellant disclosed information received from other law enforcement agencies, "the consequences would be observed at a higher level of the organization and more specifically in the forming of partnerships". The Board found that one allegation of misconduct formulated against the Appellant had been established.

At the sanction hearing, the Appellant maintained that he had believed that he was acting out of concern for the public interest, and not for any personal gain, and he acknowledged that his disclosure had been an error in judgment, in that he had wrongly assumed that the documents would not be published by the author to whom they were provided. The Board ordered the Appellant to resign from the Force within 14 days because it considered that he had failed to demonstrate that he was prepared "to fully embrace the values of the Force".

The appeal was based on three grounds. First, the Board should have dismissed the proceedings because of evidence of an abuse of process on the part of the Force, through the manner in which it had investigated this case and its failure to make full disclosure to the Appellant in a timely manner. Secondly, the Appellant's actions should not have been found to be a violation of the Code of Conduct. The Board failed to consider "the need for transparency and accountability within the police force" and failing to recognize "the dangerous reputation that the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs have among Canadian citizens". Thirdly, the sanction imposed by the Board was too harsh and inequitable given the manner in which similar misconduct has been addressed in other cases and given what were the mitigating factors of the case, including the personal and professional tribulations that the Appellant had been undergoing at the time of the disclosure.

On June 5, 2002, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Adjudication Board correctly interpreted and applied the relevant case law on the issue of abuse of process. As imperfect as the process may have been, it did not deprive the Appellant of the opportunity to make full answer and defense before the Board. The Appellant's disclosure did not raise a matter of legitimate public concern. The Appellant drew unsubstantiated conclusions about OMGs strategies that had been adopted at the national and provincial levels. The documents that were disclosed do not lend support to his contention that these strategies endangered public safety or were unethical. A sensible person in a democratic society would not want RCMP members doing what the Appellant did, knowing just how damaging the repercussions of the Appellant's actions might have been. The Appellant's disclosure was recklessly made because it was not borne out of a real concern for the public interest but was instead an expression of his frustration with not having been able to persuade his commanding officer to implement the proposal that he had put forward to him to realign resources. On sanction, given that the Appellant went to great lengths in his testimony to rationalize his actions by referring to what he termed as being his "passion for justice", it would be difficult to conclude that there was no basis to the Board's finding that the Appellant's professional and personal tribulations had little influence on his actions. That this incident was the first time in 18 years that he had been with the Force that the Appellant ever had to face a disciplinary proceeding, that his annual performance evaluation reports throughout that period revealed no performance shortcomings or character flaws and that, in the two years prior to this incident, he was twice promoted and had scored very well in the Officer Candidate Program Regional Interview Board are all relevant considerations but the Force cannot be expected to retain a member whose understanding of the obligations which the duty of loyalty entails is somewhat limited and does not appear to be trustworthy. The Committee recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

On Jun 18, 2002, the Commissioner rendered his decision, as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the External Review Committee and dismissed the appeal.