D-135 - Adjudication Board Decision

While responding to a complaint about a house party, the subject member (Respondent) and other RCMP members encountered Ms. A, who was intoxicated and belligerent and whose leg was injured. Ms. A was brought to a hospital where she continued to yell and display aggressive behavior for which she was arrested. She then spat at members and continued her aggressive behaviour. As a result, hospital staff asked that Ms. A be removed. The Respondent assisted in transporting and lodging Ms. A in a cell at the detachment. During this time, the Respondent used an expletive to compel Ms. A to exit a police car, dragged Ms. A into a cell when she refused to walk and, once in the cell, placed his knee on Ms. A’s back on the floor as she was searched by another member. The Respondent, concerned about Ms. A’s spitting at members, held her head down while she was searched. Soon after dealing with Ms. A, the Respondent was briefly involved with a second belligerent prisoner, Ms. B., due to Ms. B’s refusal to cooperate with a junior member. The Respondent removed Ms B’s chair and compelled her to sit on the floor. The Respondent’s interactions with Ms. A and Ms. B resulted in three allegations (Allegations) of disgraceful conduct pursuant to subsection 39(1) of the Code of Conduct, and included the use of offensive language, repeated use of excessive force, failure to perform his duties promptly and diligently, and abuse of authority. An Adjudication Board (Board) held a hearing and found that the Allegations were not established. The Board took into account the Respondent’s criminal acquittals on charges of having assaulted Ms. A and Ms. B, which were based on conclusions that the Respondent’s use of force had been reasonable. The Board also undertook its own assessment of the evidence to conclude that the Respondent’s actions were reasonable and that the conduct was not disgraceful. The Board recognized the Respondent’s subjective assessment of the circumstances at the time which included Ms. A’s level of intoxication, her recent spitting on members, her refusal to walk and belligerent attitude. The circumstance also included the Respondent’s concern for safety given Ms. B’s conduct earlier that night in driving an off-duty member off the road while intoxicated, kicking the arresting member and displaying a belligerent attitude at the detachment.

The ERC addressed the arguments made by the Appropriate Officer (Appellant) on appeal. First, the Appellant asserted that the Board had placed undue emphasis on the Respondent’s criminal acquittals. The ERC disagreed. The Board noted the principle, recognized in jurisprudence, which cautions that relitigation of issues can potentially undermine the credibility of the judicial process through inconsistent findings. In addition, the Board reached its own findings of fact regarding the Respondent’s use of force and whether it was justified.

The Appellant also argued that the Board had failed to consider evidence and erred in assessing the Respondent’s credibility. The ERC disagreed, finding that the Board’s decision reflected a detailed and balanced assessment of the evidence provided at the hearing. While the Board did not recite every piece of evidence put before it, its decision contained no material or determinative omissions when reviewed against the evidence presented to the Board. The Board’s reasons also showed that it was cognizant of inconsistencies in the Respondent’s testimony and of the perceptions of other members who had witnessed the events when it concluded that he was a credible witness. There was no palpable or overriding error in the Board’s assessment in this regard.

Finally, the ERC disagreed that the Board had failed to apply the proper test in relation to allegations of disgraceful conduct. The Board had, after setting out facts relevant to each Allegation, applied the correct test of whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, including the realities of policing in general and those of the RCMP in particular, would be of the opinion that the Respondent’s conduct was disgraceful.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he dismiss the appeal and confirm the Board’s decision pursuant to paragraph 45.16(2)(a) of the RCMP Act.

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

The Appropriate Officer appealed the decision of the Adjudication Board that the allegations were not established. The Commissioner agreed with the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee that the Adjudication Board made no error in its treatment of the Respondent’s criminal acquittals, correctly assessed the evidence before it and reached its own findings of fact and determinations of credibility, and applied the correct test in relation to allegations of disgraceful conduct. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Adjudication Board’s decision.