D-082 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Adjudication Board ordered the Appellant to resign from the RCMP for managing a bar/restaurant that was frequented by criminal motor cycle gangs and for trying to facilitate a drug deal at this location. These events occurred in February and March 1999 and were immediately reported to the RCMP by the Montreal police, which was monitoring the bar. The criminal operations officer (CROP) was in turn immediately informed of the allegations but did not discuss them with the Commanding Officer of the division. He then served as acting Commanding Officer of the division a number of times between May and September for a few days or a few weeks at a time while the Commanding Officer was absent. The Commanding Officer was informed of the allegations in November 1999 and disciplinary proceedings were instituted in October 2000. Arguing that the CROP was aware of the allegations when he served as Commanding Officer of the division in May 1999, the Appellant contended that the Commanding Officer did not comply with the time limit set out in the Act for instituting disciplinary proceedings, that is, twelve months from the time the Commanding Officer learned of the allegations. The Adjudication Board rejected this claim, because the CROP was not acting as Commanding Officer of the division when he learned of the allegations.

The only ground for appeal was that "the appropriate officer, even in an acting capacity, cannot disregard the knowledge he had of the alleged conduct when he becomes the appropriate officer". This statement was challenged by the opposing party, which also disputed the admissibility of the appeal because it was not filed within 14 days of the Adjudication Board's oral decision. The Appellant relied instead on the fact that he filed his appeal within 14 days of receipt of the written decision.

The appeal is admissible because the time limit for appeals set out in the Act is calculated from the date when the Appellant receives the written decision. The appeal is ill-founded, however. The CROP's knowledge of the allegations was not shared with the Commanding Officer when he served in the position on an acting basis because he was assigned to that position for very short periods only and the position was not vacant.

The appeal should be dismissed.

In response to the External Review Committee's findings and recommendations, the Appellant informed the designated officer that he intended to present a new submission to the Commissioner. The designated officer asked the parties to make submissions in this regard to allow the Commissioner to rule on the matter and to attach their comments on the report should the Commissioner conclude that the RCMP Act authorizes him to receive them.

The Commissioner ruled on this matter before reviewing the appeal. He concluded that paragraph 45.16(1)c), which identifies the documents on which his review of the matter shall be based, does not entitle the parties to present a new submission in response to the External Review Committee report. In his opinion, the interpretation of the term "written submissions" in paragraph 45.16(1)c) and subsection 45.14(7) refers to the respondent's response to the appeal submission. Moreover, it would not be logical for the Commissioner's decision to be based on additional information received after the External Review Committee report was received and to which the Committee did not have access.

As to the merits of the appeal, the Commissioner supports the External Review Committee's analysis with regard to the start of the appeal period and concludes the appeal was filed on time in this case. Then, drawing on the Adjudication Board's analysis, the Commissioner finds that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted within the one-year time limit set out in subsection 43(8) of the RCMP Act. He supports the Adjudication Board's conclusions that the knowledge of the allegations that the Acting Commanding Officer acquired in his role as the CROP did not become that of the appropriate officer based solely on the fact that he was serving as acting Commanding Officer of the division. The Commissioner dismisses the appeal as recommended by the External Review Committee.