G-765 - Stoppage of Pay and Allowances

The Grievor held a position in “X” Division.  On November 27, 2007, while off duty, he was involved in a physical altercation with a member of the community (Alleged Victim).  In the months following the incident, the Grievor allegedly conducted, for personal purposes, checks on the Alleged Victim and his spouse in the police computer system.  Following a police investigation, the Grievor was charged with assault causing bodily harm.

During his criminal trial, the Grievor testified in his own defence.  In its reasons for decision, the Court found that the Grievor’s testimony was unreliable and that the checks he conducted in the police computer system were more than a simple coincidence.

Following the RCMP’s analysis of the Grievor’s testimony and cross-examination at his criminal trial, it was determined that he allegedly made a false or misleading statement when answering questions about the checks he conducted on the Alleged Victim and his spouse in the computer system (allegation of perjury).  As a result, an investigation under the RCMP Code of Conduct was initiated and the Grievor was served with a Suspension Notice.

On August 16, 2010, the Commanding Officer of “X” Division (Commanding Officer) signed a Notice of Intent to Stop Pay and Allowances.  One month later, on September 16, 2010, the Commanding Officer issued a Recommendation to Stop Pay and Allowances (Recommendation).  The Recommendation was based on the allegation of perjury.

On February 7, 2011, the Respondent issued his decision on the Recommendation and on the same day, a Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Order (Order) was signed.

On February 11, 2011, the Grievor filed a grievance challenging the Respondent’s decision on the Recommendation as well as the Order.

The grievance was denied at Level I.  In support of his decision, the Adjudicator found that the allegation of perjury fell within [translation] “extreme and outrageous” circumstances in that [translation] “[the Grievor’s] misconduct, far from meeting the RCMP’s expectations, reflects a lack of adherence to the values it promotes, including integrity, honesty, accountability and sound judgment.”  He added that [translation] “the RCMP would risk losing the public’s trust if it did not fully and clearly dissociate itself from the Grievor, including through such means as the stoppage of pay and allowances.”  Based on these findings, the Adjudicator determined that the Grievor failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s decision was inconsistent with the applicable legislation and/or policy.

At Level II, the Grievor indicated that an RCMP Adjudication Board (Adjudication Board) found that the allegation of perjury had not been established on a balance of probabilities.  A copy of the Adjudication Board decision was eventually sent to the ERC.  As the decision made no reference to the Order, the ERC asked the Grievor to confirm whether his pay and allowances had been reinstated retroactive to February 7, 2011, the date of the Order.  The ERC also offered the parties the opportunity to make written submissions on the mootness of the grievance in the event that the Grievor would be able to confirm that his pay and allowances had in fact been reinstated.

On January 24, 2022, the Grievor confirmed that his pay and allowances had been reinstated retroactively.  Furthermore, he submitted that his grievance was not moot given the psychological harm he suffered and the many financial losses he incurred during his years without pay. 

By applying the criteria of the analysis developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, the ERC found that the entire issue on the Grievor’s stoppage of pay and allowances became moot when he was entitled to retroactive reimbursement of them as a result of the Adjudication Board’s decision.  With respect to the reimbursement of the other amounts claimed, it was determined that this was a separate issue that remains in dispute.  In this regard, while the ERC found that the circumstances did not warrant additional compensation, it was nevertheless recommended that the Grievor’s situation be reassessed to see if he should be compensated for the harm caused by the stoppage of his pay and allowances.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

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

[Translation]

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to stop his pay and allowances.  The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor failed to meet his burden of establishing that the decision to stop his pay and allowances was inconsistent with applicable legislation or policies.  The RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) recommended that the issue relating to the Grievor’s stoppage of pay and allowances be now considered moot as he received retroactive reimbursement of his pay and allowances as a result of the Adjudication Board’s decision.  The Commissioner accepted the ERC’s finding and denied the grievance.