Grievance Case Summary - G-481

The Member grieved the Respondent's decision to order the stoppage of his pay and allowances (SPA). It was alleged that, while on duty, in uniform, and using a marked cruiser, the Grievor asked a citizen, who he wished to question, to get into the cruiser. While driving, the Grievor asked him about the whereabouts of the Grievor's stolen bicycle, and refused his requests to be let out of the car or to call his lawyer. The Grievor then drove him to a remote location, and arranged for two other RCMP members to meet him there. When they exited the cruiser, the Grievor assaulted the citizen in the presence of the other members, and caused bodily harm.

The Grievor argued that the SPA order was unjustified because:

• there was an excessive delay in serving the Notice of Intent (Notice), thus the SPA order was not timely;
• there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence;
• his conduct was not outrageous;
• no criminal charges had been laid;
• SPA does not apply to summary or minor criminal offences;
• the Force has no legal authority to order SPA;
• support from his peers and the community precluded an SPA order; and
• there were compassionate grounds for not ordering SPA.

Timeliness: Although there were some minor delays, the matter was dealt with as expeditiously as possible at every stage. There were no inordinate delays, therefore the SPA process was timely.

Legal Authority to Order SPA: Since the filing of this grievance, the law has been settled that the RCMP SPA Regulations are valid, and therefore the RCMP does have legal authority to order SPA.

No Criminal Charges Laid: The laying of criminal charges is not a prerequisite for an SPA order. AM XII.5.D.9.a.2 permits an SPA order if a member is clearly involved in violating either the Criminal Code or the Code of Conduct.

Peer and Community Support/Compassionate Grounds: The existence of peer and community support does not change the fact that the elements justifying the SPA order were in place. The Grievor did not demonstrate that the financial or health benefit hardships experienced as a result of the SPA exceeded the normal effects to be expected from such an order.

Clear and Convincing Evidence of Outrageous Conduct: The record was clear that the Grievor was suspended and was suspected of contravening both the Code of Conduct and the Criminal Code. The witnesses' statements, as well as the Grievor's own admissions in his Reply to the Notice of Intent, proved that the circumstances of the incident were extreme, and that the Grievor was clearly involved in conduct that was so outrageous as to significantly affect the proper performance of his duties.

SPA Not Applicable for Provincial, Summary Conviction, or Minor Criminal Code Offences: Although criminal charges had not been laid at the time of the SPA order, this provision applies to the seriousness of the conduct, and not the timing of the order. This provision does not require that criminal charges be laid before an SPA order may be made. Rather, it requires that if charges have already been laid, the conduct must have warranted a more serious charge than merely a provincial, summary conviction, or minor Criminal Code offence. Although the Grievor had not been charged with any such offences, an SPA order was permissible.

Conclusion: All of the criteria for an SPA order had been met. The Respondent's decision respected the principle that, in extreme circumstances, an SPA order is a preventive measure designed to protect the integrity of the Force.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

The Commissioner of the RCMP decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendations and denied the grievance.