D-097 - Adjudication Board Decision

An RCMP member had arrested the Complainant, a minor female, on a criminal matter. The member spent considerable time trying to mediate the Complainant's disputes with her mother and had also tried to involve the Complainant in a Force approved sports program. Later, as a result of her complaint, the member faced two allegations related to abusing his position and authority and his attempt to negotiate sexual favours with the Complainant for money. The Complainant, her two girlfriends, her mother and brother testified and in part, they corroborated segments of her testimony. The Respondent denied all the allegations and the particulars except that he had given the Complainant one cigarette.

The RCMP Adjudication Board (the "Board") that heard the matter concluded that neither allegation had been established. While the Board described the provision of one cigarette to a minor as inappropriate, it found that it was not disgraceful. The Board had created a time line for the month in which the Complainant and Respondent had communicated that was based on the witnesses' testimony and documentation submitted. Based on that time line and other evidence, the Board noted that there were significant discrepancies and factual errors in the Complainant's testimony and that of the other Appellant witnesses. The Board noted that the Respondent gave credible evidence which provided a reasonable explanation.

As this is an Appropriate Officer's appeal, the Commissioner may only choose to confirm the decision under appeal or order a new hearing before a different adjudication board. The Appropriate Officer's request that the Commissioner "correct what is submitted to be flawed reasoning by the board" is not an available remedy under the Act.

The Board's comments about the standard of proof were somewhat confusing. However, when the Board's reasons were examined in their entirety, it was clear that they had assessed the evidence using the balance of probabilities standard with a high evidentiary threshold. While the Board was wrong when it suggested that the standard of proof was dependent on the sanction sought, the Committee believed that in light of the cases cited in their decision, the Board was trying to express that standard of proof rises to the higher end of the balance of probabilities because of the seriousness of the allegations faced by the Respondent.

It would have been inappropriate for the Board to have assessed the Complainant's credibility based only on her history which included lying to persons in authority, ignoring court orders and committing criminal offences. In this case, the Board carefully analyzed all the evidence, including the Complainant's testimony, and checked it against the time line that they had developed. As a result, they found a significant number of inconsistencies and factual errors in the Complainant's testimony which was the basis for their conclusion that the Complainant's evidence was not as credible as the Respondent's. That conclusion was strengthened by their consideration of the Complainant's history of deceitful behaviour. This was an appropriate and effective assessment of the evidence. Furthermore, the Board's reasons clearly described their analysis of all the testimony, and their conclusions on credibility.

The appeal should be dismissed.

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

The Commissioner rendered his decision on October 12, 2006. The Commissioner agreed with the Committee that the remedy sought by the Appropriate Officer is not available under the RCMP Act.

The Commissioner also held that while the Board's reference to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard" was unfortunate, when its decision as a whole is examined, he was satisfied that it had applied the balance of probabilities standard in arriving at its decision. The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that the Board had not placed undue emphasis on the complainant's character in assessing her credibility. The Commissioner found that while the Board did take into account the complainant's history of deceptive behaviour, its conclusion that she was not a credible witness was based on the inconsistencies and factual errors in her evidence.

The Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Adjudication Board and dismissed the Appropriate Officer's appeal.