D-120 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appropriate Officer (AO) initiated a disciplinary hearing. He raised one allegation that the Member acted disgracefully by using a Force travel card without permission for gambling and personal purchases after which he was unable to pay the balance owing. The parties asked that the matter proceed by way of the Early Resolution Discipline Process (ERDP), and it did. The Member admitted the allegation in an Agreed Statement of Facts, upon which the parties solely relied.

The Adjudication Board held that the Member's conduct was not sufficiently serious for a reasonable person to find it disgraceful. It deduced that a simple breach of Force policy, absent moral turpitude or a severe compromise of Force values, did not automatically constitute disgraceful conduct. It noted that the Member's breach was not repeated in the face of warnings to desist. It also did not think the Member used his travel card for dishonest, illegal or immoral purposes. It found that falling on hard times was not disgraceful, as there is a difference between refusing to pay a debt, and a temporary cash flow problem. It observed that the Member's misuse spanned a short period, that he spent relatively little, and that he paid his debt upon being asked to do so.

The AO appealed. He believes the Board erred in applying the disgraceful conduct test. The Member disputes the Appellant's position. He claims a policy breach is not always disgraceful.

The ERC was concerned with the Member's seemingly withdrawn admission. It suggested a possibility that the Member improperly admitted something just to have his case dealt with under the ERDP.

The ERC observed that the Board addressed the evidence, submissions, and authorities it was given. It found that the Board properly applied the objective test for determining if disgraceful conduct occurred. It noted that not every error of judgment is a Code of Conduct violation. It also found that the term "disgraceful" evokes the concept and objects of moral turpitude. This supports the idea that a reasonable person may consider the presence or absence of moral turpitude in deciding if conduct is disgraceful. While the Board may have deviated from some prior, similar cases, it explained why it felt those cases were distinguishable from the Member's situation. The ERC saw no errors in the Board's partial explanation that the Member amassed less debt over less time than other members. It also agreed that the Member's misconduct was not as serious as that of a member who persisted in misconduct after being warned to desist.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP dismiss the appeal. It further recommended that all participants in the ERDP ensure that there be no admission by a member unless (s)he receives full information and advice from the Member Representative, admits all the elements of the allegation, and so advises his or her Member Representative.

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

In a decision dated September 24, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson allowed the Appropriate Officer's appeal.

The Commissioner disagreed with both the Board and the ERC, and found that the Respondent's use of the Force-approved credit card for purposes other than work-related expenses (and use contrary to the terms and conditions to which he agreed), and then his failure to pay his account such that it became delinquent and the credit card company had to seek payment from the Force, was disgraceful.

The Commissioner agreed with the Appellant that the Board erred in its application of the test for disgraceful conduct by requiring immoral conduct, excessive charges or a failure to obey a direction or warning to abide by the policy.

The Commissioner cited with approval two earlier adjudication board decisions: (2000) 8 A.D. (3d) 36 and (2004) 21 A.D. (3d) 132. He found that “serious trust” is placed in members who are authorized to use government-approved credit cards and they “must not take this privilege and the trust bestowed on them lightly.” He wrote: “[w]ith this right comes a corresponding responsibility to ensure that charges are proper, and related to the purpose for which the credit card was issued, particularly considering the Force is ultimately responsible for the charges,” pointing out that in this particular case the credit card company sought payment from the RCMP for the delinquent account.

As he was bound by s. 45.16 of the Act, the Commissioner ordered a new hearing, but encouraged the parties to expedite the resolution of the matter.