D-094 - Adjudication Board Decision

In the course of two integrity tests the Appellant was observed to have removed money and property from two staged crime scenes. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced. In addition, the Appellant was subsequently charged with and pled guilty to two counts of theft under $5,000. He received a sentence of three months of imprisonment to be served in the community.

At the disciplinary hearing, the Board found that the allegations of disgraceful conduct were established. It then set out what it considered to be the mitigating and aggravating factors in the case. The Board found that the Appellant had not been totally forthright and honest about the details regarding the thefts and had failed to fully accept responsibility for the thefts. The Board also concluded that the psychiatric report provided by the Appellant did not provide an adequate explanation or nexus as to the link between the Appellant's stress and the disgraceful conduct. The Board stated that the thefts revealed the true character of the Appellant. The Board concluded that the breach of good character was so severe that it repudiated the contract between employer and employee. The Board found that rehabilitation was not possible. It stated that the evidence of personal stress was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct or explain the basic character defects. As a result, the Board ordered the Appellant to resign from the Force within fourteen days, in default of which he would be dismissed.

On appeal, the Appellant submitted that the Board failed to properly weigh the details of each of the mitigating and aggravating factors and did not take into account that societal expectations have changed and stress and personal factors are a significant factor in modern day policing. He also argued that the Board had failed to apply the principles of parity of sanction and progressive discipline in his case.

The Committee agreed with the Board that the Appellant did not sufficiently prove that there was a causal relationship between his symptoms and his misconduct. The Board properly assessed the issue of credibility, and their conclusion that the Appellant had not been forthright in his replies at the sanction hearing was also supported by the record.

The Committee found that the Board followed the appropriate steps for determining sanction, and considered all of the mitigating and aggravating factors identified. While the circumstances of the Appellant at the time of the thefts were unfortunate, and his actions to address his psychological issues since the incidents were positive, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the misconduct was such that the employment contract had been repudiated and that the Appellant was beyond rehabilitation and no longer fit to perform his duties.

The Committee rejected the argument that the principle of parity of sanction had not been followed, stating that while the Appellant has raised other cases in which the member was convicted and sentenced for criminal offences and not ordered to resign, there are also examples of decisions in which a sanction of dismissal or order to resign was imposed for similar behaviour. The Committee was also satisfied that the Board was mindful of the principle of progressive discipline and noted that the Board still had to consider the circumstances of the case before it, and it was open to the Board to decide that this was a disciplinary situation where the only sanction appropriate was the order to resign.

The appeal should be dismissed.

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

On the issue of sanction, the Commissioner ruled that the evidence supported the Board's reasoning. The Appellant's conduct was incompatible with the performance and duties of an RCMP peace officer. The Commissioner considered the seriousness of the conduct and recognized that while the amounts involved in the thefts appeared relatively small, there was a clear nexus between the misconduct and the Appellant's duties as a police officer.

As for the Board's conclusion that the death of the Appellant's mother was not a factor in his behaviour at the time of the thefts, the Commissioner ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support it. That conclusion was not, however, a key factor in the Board's final decision. Regarding the issue of the Appellant's depression at the time of the thefts, the Commissioner found that the Appellant bore the burden of proving a nexus between his depression and the misconduct but failed to do so.

Accordingly, the Commissioner found no basis on which to overturn the Board's decision on sanction. The Appellant was ordered to resign from the RCMP, and in default of resigning within 14 days, be dismissed.