D-078 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Adjudication Board ordered the Appellant to resign from the RCMP for having made unauthorized enquiries on an electronic database known as the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) concerning three members of a criminal gang known as Dope Squad. At the sanction hearing, the Board allowed the Appropriate Officer to present evidence regarding telephone calls that the Appellant made on the same evening as some of his CPIC enquiries to one of the individuals who was the subject of those enquiries. The Board also admitted evidence concerning enquiries that the Appellant had made the next day concerning the same individuals on an RCMP internal database of ongoing criminal investigations known as the Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS). That evidence was relied upon by the Board to find that the reason why the Appellant had consulted CPIC was to help the members of Dope Squad counteract attempts by the police to learn more about their involvement in the murder of a rival gang member. That finding was at odds with the Appellant's testimony to the effect that he had only acted out of curiosity, having known the members of Dope Squad in his youth before it became a criminal gang, and that he had not disclosed any information to them as to what their CPIC records indicated. The Appellant told the Board that the Force allowed him to continue to access CPIC for five months after it launched its investigation concerning his actions and allowed him to continue to work for two years, including a twelve-month period after the Notice of Hearing was issued. It was only two months before the Board's hearing that the Appellant was suspended from duty and told that the Appropriate Officer no longer had confidence in him. The Appellant expressed regret for causing embarrassment to the RCMP as a result of making unauthorized CPIC enquiries. In its decision, the Board expressed the view that the Force had led a "poorly-conducted investigation" and it criticized the Appropriate Officer for a "lack of diligence and congruity". However, it recognized the Appropriate Officer's loss of confidence in the Appellant as being an aggravating factor. It also criticized the Appellant for failing to demonstrate that he was sincerely remorseful for his actions and would be prepared to do whatever is necessary to rebuild trust with his employer.

The appeal is against the decision on sanction only and is based on four arguments: (1) the Board made an error in law by allowing the Appropriate Officer to introduce evidence of collateral facts; (2) the Board made a manifestly unreasonable assessment of the evidence by concluding that the Appellant had informed a member of Dope Squad that the group was under police surveillance; (3) the Appropriate Officer's statement that he no longer had confidence in the Appellant should not have been regarded by the Board as an aggravating factor; and (4) the Board's conclusion that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that he regretted his actions and would be able to reestablish a relationship of trust with his employer was based on a flawed interpretation of the evidence. The Board required clear and convincing evidence of a breach of trust but the nature of the collateral evidence met that standard.

There is no contradiction in the Board's position that evidence of the Appellant's telephone calls to one of the members of Dope Squad and of his PIRS enquiries was inadmissible at the hearing on the allegations but admissible at the sanction hearing, because both hearings served entirely different purposes. The purpose of the hearing on the allegations was to determine whether the Appellant had made unauthorized CPIC enquiries and, if so, whether those enquiries could bring discredit upon the Force regardless of what may have been the reasons for the enquiries or how the Appellant subsequently used the information that the enquiries enabled him to acquire. The purpose of the sanction hearing, however, was to enable the Board to assess the gravity of the Appellant's misconduct, which meant that it had to identify all of the aggravating and mitigating factors. It could not possibly hope to do so unless it knew why the Appellant had made the CPIC enquiries and to what use, if any, he had put the information that he had acquired as a result of those enquiries. The Board was compelled to make that determination regardless of the fact that the Notice of Hearing did not contain any reference to the Appellant's motives and to the consequences of his misconduct. The prejudicial effect of the evidence of collateral facts did not outweigh its probative value, which was very high because of how soon it was after the CPIC enquiries that the Appellant phoned a member of Dope Squad and made PIRS enquiries.

The Appropriate Officer's assertion that, at the time of the Board's hearing, he no longer had any confidence in the Appellant does not appear to have been nearly as significant a factor in the Board's decision on sanction as was the finding that the Appellant had committed a breach of trust. It was, however, a relevant factor for the Board to consider, just as it was appropriate for the Board to describe the delay in taking action against the Appellant as being a mitigating factor. In any event, the amount of time that elapsed before the Appellant was suspended from duty could not possibly have led the Board to impose a more lenient sanction for such a serious breach of trust.

Similarly, the issue of whether the Appellant is genuinely remorseful for what he did does not appear to be a factor that could have influenced the decision on sanction, given the nature of the breach of trust that occurred. What he did cannot be brushed aside as a mere error of judgment, for he demonstrated that he regarded loyalty towards a friend as more important than helping a colleague from another police force in the investigation of a serious crime.

The appeal should be dismissed.

The Commissioner agreed fully with the decision of the adjudication board and with the findings and recommendations of the Committee. He considers the member's misconduct a serious breach of trust going to the heart of the employment relationship. The member disregarded the core values of the RCMP and showed neither remorse nor a willingness to do what was necessary to re-establish trust with the organization. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and directed the member to resign from the RCMP within 14 days or be dismissed.