D-141 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Respondent hosted dinner at his home in a community. One of the guests at the dinner was an RCMP Constable for whom the Respondent was the direct supervisor. During the dinner, the Respondent expressed an opinion that female RCMP members struggle [at a location]. This comment led to an investigation of alleged disgraceful conduct.

An Adjudication Board held a hearing and concluded that the allegation of disgraceful conduct was not established. The Adjudication Board emphasized that the Respondent was off duty in his private residence, and that the need to regulate conduct must be balanced with the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under the Charter. The Respondent’s Member Representative (MR) appealed the Board’s decision on grounds which are not relevant to the present appeal. The Appropriate Officer (Appellant) cross-appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board ignored the relevant context, improperly applied the Charter and improperly applied the reasonable person test.

The ERC found that the Board properly considered the context of the Respondent’s statement. Furthermore, the ERC found that the Board did not err in how it applied the Charter and the reasonable person test. The Board had to consider multiple factors in its decision, including privacy, the rights of female employees in the RCMP and the fact that members of the Force are held to a higher standard than members of the public. The ERC emphasized that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Doré, administrative decision-makers may apply Charter values in their decisions. It was appropriate for the Board to consider freedom of expression as a relevant factor. The ERC concluded that the Board made no palpable and overriding error when it found that the Respondent’s comments did not amount to disgraceful conduct.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal.

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal.