D-107 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant tried to defraud a publicly-operated insurance company by lying about the date, cause and other details of a motorcycle accident in order to obtain funds to which he was not entitled. He pled guilty to, and received a conviction for, the criminal charge of attempted fraud over five thousand dollars.

The Adjudication Board found that his admitted transgression represented disgraceful conduct and was therefore a violation of the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Board concluded that the Appellant conducted himself in a manner that seriously brought his integrity into disrepute. It found that his conduct breached the need for trust, which was an essential part of the employment contract with the Force. It held that the mitigating factors were not sufficient to overcome the seriousness of his misconduct. The Board directed the Appellant to resign from the Force within 14 days, and in default, to be dismissed from the Force.

The Appellant submitted an appeal on the issue of sanction only.

The Committee was of the view that the Board's conclusions on the issue of sanction should not be disturbed. It found that the Board did not make any overriding errors with regard to its treatment of the evidence, its consideration of the Appellant's request for compassion, its findings and conclusions on the mitigating and aggravating factors, the emphasis that it placed on deterrence or the weight that it gave to the expert evidence. The Committee also found that the Board observed the principle of parity of sanction in that it took into account the cases that were before it. The Committee further found that those cases were not sufficiently similar to establish a pattern of discipline for the Appellant's situation.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he dismiss the appeal.

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

After the parties had submitted their appeal briefs and the Committee had issued its findings and recommendations on this matter, correspondence from the Appellant's counsel was received at the Commissioner's office. The Appellant's correspondence presented additional submissions and information for the Commissioner's consideration upon deciding on the appeal. After reviewing the correspondence in question, Acting Commissioner W. Sweeney concluded that the admissibility of the submissions/information presented by the Appellant was highly questionable. That being said, having reviewed and considered the information in this correspondence, the Acting Commissioner indicated that it did not cause him to reach a different decision on this appeal.

The Acting Commissioner found that there was sufficient evidence before the Board to draw the conclusion that the Appellant began to take steps towards the attempted fraud when he increased his insurance coverage on August 11, 2003.

The Commissioner agreed with the Committee's findings relative to the Board's assessment of the expert evidence. The Acting Commissioner found that the Board erred in concluding that one of the expert witnesses (a psychologist) testifying for the Appellant was not aware of his alleged misconduct prior to the hearing, and by making an incomplete description of the psychologist's intervention with the Appellant. However, these errors did not prejudice the Appellant, since they would not have affected the outcome of the case. The Acting Commissioner also agreed with the Committee that the Board was not bound by the expert evidence and could weigh it against the other evidence. Based on all of the evidence adduced at the hearing, it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude against the existence of a causal link between the Appellant's psychological condition and his misconduct.

The Acting Commissioner also agreed with the Committee's findings with regards to the Board's consideration of the Appellant's request for compassion, its findings and conclusions on the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the emphasis that it placed on deterrence. With respect to the principle of parity of sanction, the Acting Commissioner again agreed with the Committee that the Board considered the cases submitted and that those cases were not sufficiently similar to establish a pattern of discipline for the Appellant's situation.

As recommended by the Committee, the Acting Commissioner dismissed the Appellant's appeal and confirmed the sanction imposed by the Board. He concluded that although there were some errors in the Board's decision, they would not have affected the final outcome of this matter and so did not warrant overturning the Board's decision, which he found reasonable upon review as a whole. An order to resign was an appropriate and reasonable sanction in this case.