D-087 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant received an order from his manager to undergo a medical exam by a physician. He met with the physician but did not allow him to conduct the examination because he considered the order he had received to be unwarranted. In his opinion, the RCMP should have given him more detail about the medical standards he was required to meet. Two years earlier, the chief medical officer of the division had altered the Appellant's medical profile and imposed severe restrictions on the duties he could perform. This action was primarily due to a blood test showing that he had a high level of gamma G-T, a possible indication of serious medical problems relating to excessive alcohol consumption. The restrictions remained in effect because the Appellant refused to undergo a medical exam. By way of explanation, the Appellant maintained he was waiting for the RCMP to indicate the acceptable gamma G-T level, since he intended to demonstrate that he met it. He also cited the unavailability of this information to justify his refusal to obey the order he received Later on, the information requested was finally provided and he then underwent a medical exam showing that his gamma G-T level met the RCMP requirements and that he did not have any health problems. The Adjudication Board found that the order the Appellant received was warranted because the chief medical officer had valid concerns about his health and the Appellant had been informed of the specific nature of those concerns. Thus the Appellant's refusal to undergo the medical exam ordered violated the Code of Ethics.

Between the end of the hearing on the merits of the allegation and the start of the hearing regarding the sanction, one of the members of the Adjudication Board attended a riding course for RCMP officers. The manager who had ordered the Appellant to have the medical exam was also on that course. They spoke for three minutes and discussed the RCMP disciplinary procedure but did not discuss the facts or evidence in the Appellant's case. When the chair of the Adjudication Board heard about this conversation, he wrote to the parties to inform them of it. At the start of the hearing regarding the sanction, the Appellant requested that the proceedings be cancelled on the grounds that the conversation disqualified the member party to it from serving as a board member. The Adjudication Board chair denied this request, stating that the conversation did not give rise to a reasonable fear of bias.

At the hearing regarding sanction, the new chief medical officer of the division said she was still unable to remove the restrictions imposed on the Appellant because she had still not received the medical report on his health and was thus unable to form an opinion on the treatment he was to receive. A physician who had examined the Appellant and noted that he had no major health problems testified that the Appellant had just admitted to him that he was an alcoholic. This is also what the Appellant stated in his testimony, noting that he trusted the new chief medical officer and was thus committed to following the course of treatment she deemed appropriate. The Adjudication Board concluded however that the Appellant's conduct showed that he had no remorse and could not be rehabilitated. It thus ordered the Appellant to resign from the RCMP.

The order the Appellant received to undergo a medical exam because of the health problems that had been identified was justified. The Appellant's distrust of the chief medical officer and the lack of information about the gamma G-T standards were not valid grounds for refusing to submit to a medical exam.

The conversation between a member of the Adjudication Board and a witness were not of sufficient concern to require suspension of the proceedings or exclusion of the member because the conversation was very brief and did not pertain to the Appellant's case. That being said, it was not up to the chair of the Adjudication Board but rather to the member in question to rule on the request.

The decision regarding sanction should be overturned because the Adjudication Board incorrectly interpreted the reasons why the Appellant was unable to admit that he had been wrong. It also underestimated the importance of the fact that he ultimately acknowledged being an alcoholic and agreed to treatment. The lack of remorse can in large part be explained by the fact that the Appellant was convinced that the order he had received was unwarranted and that he thought he had been unfairly treated by the chief medical officer.

The appeal of the decision on the merits of the allegation should be dismissed. The appeal of the decision on the sanction should be allowed. The Appellant should forfeit ten days of pay and receive a reprimand.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Committee. He dismissed the appeal of the decision on the merits and allowed the appeal on sanction.