D-136 - Adjudication Board Decision

Two allegations of disgraceful conduct under section 39(1) of the 1988 Regulations were brought against the Appellant which relate to the same series of events. In April 2010, the Appellant was seen by members of the public driving her vehicle while visibly impaired. The Appellant had drove partially into a ditch and had to request assistance from members of the public to have her vehicle removed from the ditch. She became agitated and defensive, and misled them about her identity. The Appellant was driven to a nearby beach under the promise that she would not be driving. She later drove away from the beach and after passing an RCMP vehicle, she drove on a private road and partially concealed her vehicle in bushes. The Appellant was later found by the RCMP walking along the highway.

Following a hearing, the Adjudication Board (Board) found both allegations established. A sanction hearing began with each party calling expert witnesses to testify on the Appellant’s psychological disorders. The Board ordered the Appellant to resign or be dismissed within fourteen days. The Appellant appealed this decision arguing that the Board did not have proper reasons to deviate from her expert witness’ testimony and imposing a sanction that was too harsh given the mitigating factors. The Appellant also filed on appeal a decision from the Commissioner overturning a Board decision, which had found an allegation of disgraceful conduct established against the Appellant.

The ERC first found that the Commissioner’s decision was admissible in the appeal proceedings as it was relevant and rendered after the Board’s decision in this case. The ERC further found that the Board did not make any findings contrary to the Appellant’s expert’s opinion as the expert had not testified or provided evidence on the issue of a nexus between the Appellant’s actions and her disorders. Conversely, the Respondent’s expert witness had testified that the disorders could not explain the Appellant’s providing a false name and partially concealing her vehicle in bushes. Lastly, the ERC found that, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s decision regarding the Appellant’s previous misconduct, dismissal remained warranted.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal.

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

The Appellant had faced two allegations of disgraceful conduct and both were found established by an Adjudication Board. The Appellant appealed the Board's finding on the second allegation that alleged the Appellant had purposefully identified herself as an RCMP officer and was misleading by providing a false or fictitious name. The Appellant also appealed the global sanction imposed by the Board, directing her to resign from the Force within 14 days or be dismissed if she failed to do so. The Commissioner agreed with the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee that the Board did not err in finding the Appellant's conduct, as particularized in the second allegation, was disgraceful. Further, the Commissioner found that the Board did not err in accepting the evidence from the Appropriate Officer Representative's expert, which remained within the evidentiary confines set by the Board. With regard to sanction, the Commissioner considered the mitigating factors in the Appellant's situation, and found that they did not render the Appellant's dismissal unwarranted. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Board's decision.