D-111 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant was a Watch Commander, and the Complainant was transferred to the detachment as a Senior Constable for his Watch. Soon after her arrival, the Complainant commenced teaching the RCMP Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (DARE) in the local schools both while on duty and off duty. DARE was a mandatory deliverable to the detachment and others on the Appellant's Watch were also DARE instructors. The relationship between the Appellant and the Complainant deteriorated in light of operational policing performance issues that the Appellant and others identified regarding the Complainant and her participation as an instructor for the DARE program. The Complainant alleged that the Appellant was harassing her and the Appropriate Officer then laid seven allegations of misconduct against the Appellant, one of which was withdrawn by the commencement of the disciplinary hearing.

The RCMP Adjudication Board (Board) that heard the matter concluded that only one of the six allegations was established, that is, the Appellant's conduct amounted to harassment and that it was disgraceful conduct. The Board found that the detachment where this occurred was dysfunctional and that a lack of leadership at all levels could have been partly responsible for the case at hand. The Board found that the evidence demonstrated that the Appellant was highly critical of DARE as it affected the delivery of front line operational policing, and that he was critical of the Complainant's involvement in DARE. As well, the Board found that the Appellant was unwilling to compensate the Complainant for work done while off duty by allowing time in lieu as ordered by the detachment commander. The Board also found that there was an inconsistency in how the Appellant treated the Complainant with respect to the DARE program and how he treated other Watch members who taught DARE classes. As a sanction the Board imposed a reprimand and the forfeiture of three days' pay as well as a recommendation to attend the divisional harassment course. After the Board's decision, the Appellant submitted additional information for consideration on his appeal.

The Appellant appealed not only the Board's finding, but also the sanction imposed.

The ERC first recommended that the RCMP Commissioner not consider the additional information submitted as it did not meet the criteria for considering new information on appeal. The ERC then found that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the Appellant's conduct in relation to the Complainant's work with the DARE program was offensive on its face and therefore, the Board made no manifest or determinative error in finding that the conduct amounted to harassment.

On the issue of sanction, the ERC noted that there were important discrepancies between the oral and written decisions rendered by the Board, and these needed to be addressed even though they were not raised by the parties on appeal. The ERC recommended that the RCMP Commissioner allow the appeal on sanction, because by having two substantially different sets of reasons, the parties were not able to determine the basis for the Board's decision. The ERC also recommended that, after conducting his own review, the RCMP Commissioner vary the sanction by removing the forfeiture of pay on the basis that this better reflected the mitigating and aggravating factors, and better met the parity of sanction principle.

The ERC recommended that the RCMP Commissioner deny the appeal on the merits. It also recommended that he allow the appeal with respect to sanction and vary the sanction by removing the forfeiture of three days' pay.

The Commissioner of the RCMP's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner denied the appeal on the merits and on the sanction, and upheld the decision of the Adjudication Board.

With respect to Allegation #4, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the Appellant's conduct in relation to the Complainant's participation in the DARE program was offensive on its face, was an abuse of authority and amounted to harassment, and therefore was disgraceful contrary to s. 39 of the Code of Conduct. The Commissioner concluded that the Board made no reviewable error in concluding that Allegation #4 was established.

Upon considering the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the principle of parity of sanction, the Commissioner did not find that the Board committed a reviewable error with respect to the sanction it imposed. As the sanction was not disproportionate with the sanction in previous similar cases, but was within the appropriate range; was reasonable; considered the relevant factors, including important mitigating factors; did not take into consideration any irrelevant aggravating factors; and did not demonstrate an error in principle, the Commissioner did not believe there was a sufficient basis to substitute his view or the ERC's view for the Adjudication Board's.