D-142 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant committed disgraceful conduct that brought discredit to the Force. He specified that the Appellant asked a fellow member, Constable (Cst.) [A], to omit from a police report information about an incident the Appellant was involved in while off-duty, including information that the Appellant had pointed a firearm at two men (Allegation). Following a contested, two-day hearing, the Adjudication Board (Board) decided that the Allegation was established. It gave the Appellant a reprimand and a forfeiture of pay, further to a joint proposal.

The Appellant presented an appeal. In his opinion, the Board made mistakes by finding that:

1. the particulars of the Allegation met statutory and common law specificity requirements;
2. the Respondent’s failure to call a certain witness did not raise an adverse inference; and
3. Cst. [A] was credible, but the Appellant and the Appellant’s girlfriend were not credible.

The Appellant asked the Commissioner to allow his appeal, and to overturn his sanctions.

The ERC identified and addressed some preliminary issues. It then determined that the Appellant’s arguments on appeal lacked merit.

First, the ERC found that the Board properly concluded that the particulars of the Allegation met the specificity requirements set forth in subsection 43(6) of the RCMP Act, and reflected in case law. It was clear from the Board’s reasons that it understood those requirements, applied them to the particulars of the Allegation, and did not make a clear and pivotal error in so doing.

Second, the ERC found that the Board properly concluded that the Respondent’s failure to call a certain witness did not create an adverse inference against the Respondent’s case. The Board’s reasons showed that it understood and applied the adverse inference principle, came to findings that were supported by the record, and did not make a clear and pivotal error in so doing.

Third, the ERC found that the Board appropriately assessed witness credibility. The Board applied the relevant principles, set forth in longstanding case law, which guide witness credibility evaluations. In so doing, the Board relied on clear and convincing evidence, gave reasons that sufficiently explained its findings, and made no irrelevant or flawed considerations. Although the Appellant disagreed with the Board’s assessments, he did not point to a clear and pivotal error.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal.