D-118 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant admitted to having on-duty sexual activity with an intoxicated citizen, falsifying his notes about what occurred, and intentionally providing inaccurate warned statements about the event to a superior. The Adjudication Board (Board) held that the allegations against him were proven.

The Board relied upon cases indicating that when on-duty sexual acts arise from a professional relationship between a police officer and a vulnerable citizen, the breach of trust is so serious that it will ordinarily lead to dismissal. It held that the Appellant's decision to place his interests ahead of those of a vulnerable citizen, and then lie about it, revealed a character flaw that made him unfit to perform police duties. It ordered him to resign within 14 days, or to be dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the Board's finding that intentionally offering a false warned statement was a breach of the Code of Conduct. He appeared to argue that such a statement should be deemed a Code of Conduct violation only when made during a purely disciplinary investigation, where there is a statutory duty to answer questions. He also appealed the Board's sanction.

The ERC found that the Board properly applied the law in deciding that giving false warned statements on purpose during a criminal investigation represents a violation of the Code of Conduct. It stated that members can stay silent while being questioned during criminal investigations, like other citizens. It noted that the superior who took the Appellant's statements made this clear. It further observed that the Appellant confirmed that he understood his rights.

The ERC went on to conclude that the Board supported its findings concerning the Appellant's credibility. It also found that the Board respected principles of procedural fairness. It further found that the Board made no palpable and overriding errors which might have undermined its reasoning and decision. Finally, the ERC found that the Board neither erred in its analysis of the aggravating and mitigating factors, nor in its application of the principle of parity of sanction.

The ERC 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:

In a decision dated July 11, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson agreed with the findings and recommendations of the ERC and denied the appeal. The Commissioner upheld the sanction imposed by the Adjudication Board and directed Constable [XX] to resign within 14 days, in default of which he would be dismissed from the Force.