D-092 - Adjudication Board Decision

An RCMP member was approached by a private investigation firm and asked for information regarding vehicle registration and licence plate numbers, who were the owners of these vehicles and what were their birth dates. The member was able to provide that information by accessing police databanks. He believed that the information being sought was in relation to executing seizure orders that had been issued by the courts. The investigation firm could have obtained much of the same information, but not all of it, by paying a $10 application fee to the province. The member was also offered money by the firm to seize two vehicles and secure them in the detachment compound. He initially accepted these offers but changed his mind several days later. Before an RCMP Adjudication Board (the "Board"), the member admitted his misconduct and expressed remorse. At the sanction hearing that followed, evidence was introduced that the member had been reprimanded six years prior to the latest incidents for another unauthorized disclosure of personal information obtained by accessing police databanks. Based largely on that evidence and what it regarded as the member having been motivated by personal gain, the Board concluded that he should be ordered to resign from the Force. It stated that the fact that he had once again disclosed personal information after having been previously disciplined for the same misconduct was an indication that the risk of recurrence remained high. The Board also stated that it considered the evidence to have established that the misconduct was attributable to an unacceptable character flaw for RCMP members, which it described as an inability to say "no" to others. The Board relied in part on a psychotherapist's report which stated that the misconduct arose because the member wanted to be helpful to an individual who had at one time been a colleague in the policing community with whom he had worked. However, as a result of 18 months of therapy that the member had undergone since that time, the psychotherapist had concluded that the member had become more assertive and a recurrence of misconduct was therefore unlikely.

In his appeal of the sanction imposed by the Board, the member argued that he was being treated more harshly than other members have been for similar misconduct. He disputed the Board's assessment that there was a risk of recurrence, noting that former supervisors and colleagues who had appeared as character witnesses testified that they considered him to be highly trustworthy.

The member's previous discipline justifies a harsher sanction than would otherwise be the case. However, the Board's assessment that a risk of recurrence is high is not supported by the evidence. The weight attributed to the prior discipline is somewhat diminished by the fact that it is dated and consisted only of a reprimand that was administered informally. The misconduct is primarily an error of judgment and not an indication that the member is corruptible. He should therefore be permitted to remain with the Force.

The appeal should be allowed. The sanction to be imposed should consist in the forfeiture of 10 days' pay and a reprimand.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

As this was an appeal on sanction, the key issue to be addressed was whether the Board's decision ordering the Appellant to resign was appropriate. The Commissioner concluded that the evidence supported the Board's reasoning on a rational basis sufficient to justify the sanction imposed. He therefore denied the appeal.

Unlike the ERC, the Commissioner was unable to conclude that the Board's primary justification for the order to resign was the Appellant's previous discipline. The existence of previous discipline was one of many aggravating factors that were considered. The Appellant's actions represented serious Code of Conduct offences and demonstrated both poor judgment and a lack of professionalism. The Appellant's conduct was simply incompatible with the performance and duties of an RCMP officer. Accordingly, the Commissioner confirmed the Board's decision and directed the Appellant to resign from the RCMP within fourteen (14) days or, in default, be dismissed.