D-133 - Adjudication Board Decision

While off-duty, the Appellant used an RCMP credit card to purchase $30.00 of gasoline for a personal vehicle. The Appellant’s conduct resulted in one allegation of disgraceful conduct against the Appellant. The proceedings took place pursuant to the Force’s Early Resolution Discipline Process. The parties presented an agreed statement of facts to the Board in which the Appellant admitted the Allegation. The parties also made a joint submission on sanction proposing a reprimand and a forfeiture of 10 days of the Appellant’s pay. The Board advised the parties that it was seriously considering dismissal and adjourned the hearing to give the parties the opportunity to file additional evidence. The hearing reconvened a few months later. The Appellant filed his treating psychologist’s notes as evidence and called the divisional psychologist as an expert witness. The Appellant’s treating psychologist did not testify. The Board rejected the joint submission and ordered the Appellant to resign from the Force within 14 days or be dismissed. The Appellant appealed the Board’s decision on sanction.

The ERC found that the Board improperly discounted the expert psychological evidence presented by the Appellant and, in so doing, made a manifest error. Further, the ERC found that the Board came to conclusions which engaged psychological expertise which the Board did not possess. The ERC found that, although the Board based its decision to reject the joint submission of the parties on the public interest test, it did not in fact apply the substance of the public interest test to the case before it and improperly disregarded the parties’ joint submission on sanction. Finally, the ERC found that the Board did not lose its impartiality or create a reasonable apprehension of bias in researching precedent cases on its own initiative nor did the Appellant discharged his onus of establishing bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the Commissioner of the RCMP impose the sanction placed before the Board in the joint submission of the parties regarding sanction, namely a reprimand and a forfeiture of ten (10) days of the Appellant’s pay.

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

In a decision dated January 24, 2018, the Commissioner accepted the ERC’s recommendation and found that the adjudication board made manifest and determinative errors by unreasonably discounting the expert medical opinion as well as by giving little weight to the joint submission on sanction and deviating from the proposed sanction without providing clear and cogent reasons. The Commissioner allowed the appeal and varied the sanction imposed by the adjudication board to the sanction placed before it in the joint submission, namely a reprimand and a forfeiture of 10 days of the Appellant’s pay.

The Appellant presented an appeal challenging the sanction imposed by an RCMP adjudication board following its finding that the Appellant conducted himself in a disgraceful manner bringing discredit on the RCMP. The allegation stems from the Appellant’s personal and unauthorized use of an RCMP ARI Canada credit card to purchase $30.00 of gasoline for a personal vehicle. The adjudication board rejected the joint submission on sanction presented by the parties consisting of a reprimand and the forfeiture of 10 days’ pay, and directed the Appellant to resign from the Force within 14 days or be dismissed.

The Appellant raised the following three grounds of appeal: the consideration of the expert medical opinion by the adjudication board, the adjudication board’s adherence to the principles applicable to joint submissions on sanction, and impartiality and reasonable apprehension of bias.