D-144 - Discipline Case Summary

The RCMP alleged that the Appellant behaved discreditably by spreading information he knew was untrue and likely harmful, and by making a false and misleading statement to a superior in which he attributed the untrue information to an innocent member. Following a two-day hearing, the Adjudication Board (Board) determined that both Allegations were established (Decision). It then gave the Appellant a reprimand and a forfeiture of ten days’ pay, further to a joint proposal.

The Appellant presented an appeal. He felt the Board made mistakes by:

1. placing him in a reverse onus position;
2. providing reasons that were insufficient;
3. making two errors of fact; and
4. misconstruing certain evidence.

The appeal did not raise any preliminary issues. 

The ERC found that the Appellant’s arguments on appeal were unsuccessful.

First, the Board did not place the Appellant in a reverse onus position, or make him “prove that he was not lying”. Rather, it performed a credibility analysis after finding that the case turned on a phone call between the Appellant and a witness who both recalled their discussion differently. The Board said it preferred the witness’s evidence because it appeared resolute, objective and reliable, whereas the Appellant’s position continually changed and culminated in a dubious, late clarification. The Board’s approach was neither borne of an error of law, nor procedurally unfair.

Second, the Board’s reasons were not insufficient. The Board provided specific findings for both Allegations, as well as for all the particulars. The Board’s findings responded to the main issues and concerns in a clear manner that considered the evidence and testimony before the Board.

Third, the Appellant did not reveal a palpable and overriding error of fact. The two factual errors the Board allegedly made were minor. Nothing in the Allegations or particulars turned on the facts at issue. The errors were therefore not serious enough to undermine the Board’s reasons.

Fourth, the Board did not misconstrue evidence. It assessed the evidence as a whole and in view of other evidence. Moreover, there was no sign of it ignoring something vital. It supported its credibility findings, further to its obligation to do so. It also based all its conclusions on the evidence and testimony before it. It would be inappropriate to reweigh evidence on appeal, which appears to be what the Appellant wants. The fact that the Appellant would have weighed evidence differently than the Board does not, on its own, show a palpable and overriding error.

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal.