D-104 - Adjudication Board Decision

The member was alleged to have engaged in three incidents of disgraceful conduct: improperly divulging information to a member of the public; threatening and assaulting a member of the public while intoxicated; and misusing a police vehicle. Substantially all of the facts were admitted.

During the sanction portion of the hearing, expert evidence was led with respect to the Appellant's suffering from early stage alcoholism, which was in the process of being successfully treated. In addition, various members testified or wrote letters in support of the Appellant.

The Adjudication Board found that the misconduct had been made out and ordered the Appellant to resign, absent which, he was to be dismissed. The Appellant appealed on the issue of sanction alone.

The Committee found that there were three areas of the Board's reasons which were problematic.

Firstly, the Committee found that the Board erred when it dismissed the impact of early stage alcoholism as a factor leading to the misconduct. Secondly, the Committee found that the Board's opinion on the Appellant's prognosis for recovery was unreasonably pessimistic. Finally, the Committee found that the Board erred when it found that all of the Appellant's support was qualified.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the appeal and vary the sanction.

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

The Commissioner dismissed the Appellant's appeal of the sanction imposed by the Adjudication Board.

The Commissioner found that the Board did take into consideration the expert evidence relative to the characteristic traits of early stage alcoholics, such as poor judgement. However, as the ERC acknowledged in its report, the Board was not bound by the experts' opinion evidence. As the trier of fact, it could assess its probative value like any other type of evidence. The Board essentially concluded that the Appellant's "deceitfulness" was the "core issue" in this matter and that the Appellant's actions revealed his "true character". Given all of the evidence heard at the hearing and the Board's assessment of this evidence, including the Appellant's credibility, the Commissioner found that the evidence supported the Board's reasoning on a rational basis.

The review of the Board's decision and of the evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the Board considered the relevant evidence and gave reasons for its findings of fact relative to the Appellant's credibility and deceitfulness. The Commissioner concluded that deference should be given to the Board's findings in this respect. The Commissioner also indicated that persisting concerns with respect to the Appellant's integrity and honesty, notwithstanding his treatment for alcoholism, were a significant factor to be considered in the determination of the sanction and the Commissioner agreed with the emphasis placed by the Board on this factor.

The Commissioner failed to see how the Board committed a palpable and overriding error in its assessment of the rehabilitation evidence as a mitigating factor, which would warrant an intervention into its decision on the sanction. The review of the Board's decision showed that the Board did consider the evidence adduced at the hearing relative to the Appellant's rehabilitation, in its consideration of the mitigating factors. The Board's comments about the remaining steps to be achieved in the Appellant's treatment program were supported by the evidence.

Although the Board may have erred in finding that the support expressed by one of the witnesses for the Appellant was qualified, the Commissioner did not believe that this error affected the outcome of the case. As previously stated by the ERC, the RCMP disciplinary process is not a popularity contest. Even overwhelming support and praise for the Member would not necessarily have led to a different decision on the sanction.

The Commissioner found that an order to resign was an appropriate and reasonable sanction considering all of the factors present in this case, including the cumulative nature of the contraventions and the Appellant's related prior discipline in a short period of service. Consequently, the Board's decision on sanction was confirmed and the Appellant was directed to resign within 14 days, in default of which he would be dismissed.