NC-008 - Administrative Discharge

In February 2015, the Appellant forged an email exchange with a Crown prosecutor and created electronic reports reflecting the exchange. The Appellant was charged criminally with forgery, pled guilty to the charge in criminal court and received a conditional discharge and four months’ probation with conditions. The Force investigated the Appellant’s conduct and brought four allegations of discreditable conduct and inaccurate reporting, contrary to the RCMP Code of Conduct. The Appellant admitted those allegations at a hearing before an RCMP conduct board (Board). On January 28, 2016, the Board found the allegations to be established and imposed conduct measures on the Appellant including a significant aggregate forfeiture of pay. However, the Board said it was “not proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the contraventions to order the [Appellant’s] loss of employment”. The Conduct Authority appealed the Board’s imposition of conduct measures and sought the Appellant’s dismissal from the Force. The ERC recently issued its findings and recommendations in that appeal. To the knowledge of the ERC, the Commissioner had not made a decision regarding the appeal as of the date of this report.

In early 2016, the RCMP initiated the revocation of the Appellant’s RCMP reliability status (“security clearance”) on the basis of the February 2015 misconduct. Subsequently, the Respondent issued an Order that the Appellant be discharged from the Force, effective October 20, 2016, on the basis that the Appellant no longer possessed a basic requirement for the carrying out of his duties, namely, the required security clearance.

The Appellant filed an appeal of the Order to Discharge. He argues that the Force is attempting to circumvent the conduct process and the January 28, 2016 decision of the Board by discharging the Appellant for the February 2015 misconduct through alternative means.

The ERC considered whether the Appellant’s appeal was referable to the ERC. Section 17 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014 (2014 Regulations) sets out the types of non-conduct appeals that are to be referred to the ERC and provides as follows:

17. Before an adjudicator, as defined in section 36 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), who is seized of any of the following appeals considers the appeal, the adjudicator must, subject to section 50 of those Standing Orders, it to the Committee:

• (a) an appeal by a complainant of a written decision referred to in subsection 6(1) and paragraph 6(2)(b) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints);

• (b) an appeal of a written decision revoking the appointment of a member under section 9.2 of the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (Act or RCMP Act)];

• (c) an appeal of a written decision discharging or demoting a member under paragraph 20.2(1)(e) of the Act;

• (d) an appeal of a written decision discharging or demoting a member under paragraph 20.2(1)(g) of the Act on the following grounds:

  • (i) disability, as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act,

  • (ii) being absent from duty without authorization or having left an assigned duty without authorization, or

  • (iii) conflict of interest;

• (e) an appeal of a written decision ordering the stoppage of a member’s pay and allowances under paragraph 22(2)(b) of the Act.

The Appellant is appealing the decision of the Respondent to discharge him from the Force pursuant to paragraph 20.2(1)(g) of the RCMP Act and subsection 6(e) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Employment Requirements) (CSOs (Employment Requirements)). Therefore, the appeal must fall within one of the paragraphs set forth in subsection 17(d) of the 2014 Regulations in order to be referable to the ERC. Subsection 6(e) of the CSOs (Employment Requirements) permits the discharge of a member if he or she no longer possesses a basic requirement for the carrying out of the member’s duties. One of the basic requirements for the carrying out of a member’s duties is the requirement to have a security clearance (paragraph 2(1)(c) of the CSOs (Employment Requirements)). It is on this basis that the Force discharged the Appellant. Discharge of a member pursuant to subsection 6(e) of the CSOs (Employment Requirements) is not one of the grounds set forth in subsection 17(d) of the 2014 Regulations. Therefore, the appeal is not referable to the ERC.

The appeal is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the appeal or to make any findings or recommendations.

The ERC returned the file to the RCMP to be addressed by the responsible office(s) within the Force.