D-077 - Adjudication Board Decision
An RCMP adjudication board (the "Board") found that the Appellant had violated the RCMP's Code of Conduct for having alerted an individual who was the subject of an ongoing investigation by Human Resources Development Canada for employment insurance fraud that the business records of his employer were about to be searched. As a result, the individual was able to arrange for the employer's premises to be closed when the investigator arrived and the search could not be carried out. At the sanction hearing, the Appellant maintained that he had acted impulsively and he had not intended to impede the investigation. Several colleagues testified that the Appellant's conduct was out of character. A psychologist's report attributed the misconduct to "those of an inexperienced young Officer whose loyalties to friends or associates conflicted with his duties and responsibilities as an Officer" and he concluded that the Appellant "has learned a valuable lesson, one that surely will guide him in his future work endeavors". The Board disagreed with the psychologist's report. It found that the Appellant's telephone call was designed to obstruct the investigation and that the Appellant's evidence was not credible. Concluding that the Appellant had not accepted full responsibility for his actions, it ordered him to resign from the Force within 14 days.
The appeal was made against the decision on sanction only and based on three grounds: (1) The Board imposed a discriminatory sanction in that it failed to consider previous decisions that have addressed similar misconduct and resulted in more lenient sanctions; (2) The Board's finding concerning the Appellant's credibility was not supported by any evidence; (3) The Board's assessment of the Appellant's character was contradicted by the psychological evidence and that of the Appellant's colleagues.
On June 25, 2002, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Appellant's misconduct is an example of a corrupt practice. Accordingly, the sanction should not vary based on whether or not he is judged to be a credible witness and whether or not his actions were premeditated. The evidence from the Appellant's colleagues about his trustworthiness, discretion and reliability does not begin to address the fundamental question as to why the misconduct occurred. The Appellant's youth and inexperience cannot justify a more lenient sanction. By showing himself to be corruptible, the Appellant forfeited his entitlement to continue his career with the Force, as have members before him who also engaged in corrupt practices, even though they too were highly regarded by their colleagues and were genuinely remorseful for their actions. The Committee recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
On July 11, 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.