D-112 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant admitted one allegation of disgraceful conduct, and the Adjudication Board (Board) found it to be established. The Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) revealed that, while off-duty and after consuming alcohol, the Appellant attended a bar wearing an outlaw motorcycle gang t-shirt. He was refused entry because he appeared intoxicated. He became very upset, made threatening comments to security staff, and refused to leave until after police intervention. The Appellant admitted that his drinking was a "big part of his problem".

The Appellant's disciplinary record included two informal disciplines in 1994 and 1997, and a formal discipline in 1997 for physically assaulting his sister-in-law and his wife. All prior misconduct incidents involved alcohol consumption and acts of violence. The 1997 Adjudication Board stated that that was his "last chance", and that any recurrence could lead to his dismissal.

The Appellant's witnesses in the sanction hearing included two registered clinical psychologists and a clinical psychotherapist with specialization in Native counselling. The Appellant submitted that these experts' reports and testimony evidenced his rehabilitative potential. However, the Board found that this evidence was "inconclusive at best", and that the doctrine of culminating incident applied. The Board ordered the Appellant to resign within fourteen days or be dismissed.

In appealing the sanction, the Appellant alleged that the Board made numerous errors, including:

• applying the doctrine of culminating incident;
• misinterpreting the expert evidence and concluding that there was no positive prognosis for rehabilitation;
• failing to apply the principle of parity and the principle that correction, rather than punishment, is the preferred objective in sanctioning;
• giving insufficient weight to the Appellant's remorse;
• finding that the Appellant breached the public's trust;
• making findings which had a negative impact on the Appellant's credibility; and
• considering that the Appropriate Officer (AO) had lost confidence despite the AO not testifying.

The Doctrine of Culminating Incident: Although there was a seven-year gap between the Appellant's 1997 discipline and the present misconduct, and although there were positive periods in his work history, there was an identifiable pattern of alcohol use leading to aggressive/threatening behaviour. The Board did not err in applying this doctrine because all the criteria were met: the present incident of misconduct merited discipline, the Appellant had a disciplinary record, and the Appellant had already been put on notice by the 1997 Board that further misconduct could lead to his dismissal.

Rehabilitative Potential: The Board did not err in finding that the evidence of rehabilitative potential was "inconclusive at best", and therefore insufficient. There was evidence that the Appellant failed at his previous rehabilitation attempt. The Board reasonably required evidence of his present rehabilitative potential. However, the Appellant's expert witnesses' opinions differed in terms of the recommended treatment; he had not followed one expert's recommendation; and he was just beginning to address his issues with another expert.

Principle of Parity / Preference for Correction Over Punishment: The Board reasonably concluded that none of the cases submitted for its consideration contained a fact pattern similar to the present case. Therefore it did not err by not applying the principle of parity.

The Board noted that the primary purpose of a disciplinary sanction was not necessarily punishment, but it also noted that it had to balance several principles. As it did not ignore the preference for correction, it did not err in this regard.

Remorse: Although the Board did not weigh the Appellant's remorse as heavily as he would have preferred, the Board did note it as a mitigating factor, and therefore it did not err.

Breach of Public's Trust: The Board did not err because there was evidence to support its conclusion that the Appellant's misconduct had damaged the public's trust.

Appellant's Credibility: The Board did not err in this regard because it did not make any findings - positive or negative - concerning the Appellant's credibility.

Considering AO's Position Despite AO Not Testifying: Although the AO did not testify, the AOR had advised the Board that the AO was seeking the Appellant's dismissal. This was sufficient to support the Board's conclusion that the AO had lost confidence in the Appellant.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP dismiss the appeal.

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

Commissioner William J. S. Elliott agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and denied the appeal.