NC-015 - Stoppage of Pay and Allowances

In 2016, the Appellant was served with a Notice of Intent to Order a Stoppage of his pay and allowances (SPA). This Notice was based on information arising from several separate incidents.

The Notice of Intent was accompanied by disclosure of the material the Respondent currently had. While this included a copy of the full statement concerning one incident, the Appellant was only provided with copies of summaries of statements obtained concerning the most recent incidents still under investigation by a third party. Prior to providing his Response to the Notice of Intent, the Appellant requested disclosure of all materials available to the Respondent with respect to the most recent incidents “including the full statements” of witnesses. He also requested any statement and exculpatory photos that he or his wife had provided to police or to the third party. These requests were denied on the basis that the criminal investigation into the most recent incidents was being conducted by a third party and was still ongoing.

The Appellant addressed the SPA criteria, arguing that the circumstances surrounding the first incident were not exceptional. Finally, he urged that the SPA process had not been initiated in a timely fashion. He urged that if further disclosure were not provided, that the SPA only be assessed on the basis of the first incident. The Respondent ordered the Appellant’s pay and allowances be stopped, based on all allegations including the most recent incidents.

The ERC found that the SPA decision maker needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient reliable information in the circumstances of the ongoing processes, to reach the decision about whether a SPA meets policy. The principle of a higher standard for professional discipline bodies stated in case law does not apply to the SPA process because a member’s right to continue in policing is not at stake. The ERC thus found that, as the full statements and recordings of those statements were not available for the Respondent’s consideration, their non-disclosure was not a breach of procedural fairness.

The ERC found that the SPA was timely as the Respondent indicated that the key basis of the decision to issue the Notice of Intent was the totality of the circumstances, including the more recent allegations.

The ERC found that the Respondent had not reversed the presumption of innocence as she merely noted in response to his allegation that the non-disclosure of his and his wife’s statements and photographs precluded him from an opportunity to make a full reply, that such evidence had been generated by him and he was free to produce it in support of his arguments, but he did not. The ERC also found that previous decisions that considered obsolete criteria within the former SPA framework could not be helpful in rendering a decision within the present framework that uses criteria that have changed.

Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent rendered a decision based on the information available at the time and this was not a manifest and determinative error and that the SPA decision was not clearly unreasonable given the evidence available.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal.

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

The Appellant presented an appeal challenging the decision of the Commanding Officer, “[X]” Division (Respondent) to order the stoppage of pay and allowances pursuant to paragraph 22(2)(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, 1985, c R-10 following allegations brought against him involving sexual misconduct while on duty, harassment, and breach of trust.

The Appellant argued that the Respondent erred in failing to consider and disclose information considered relevant by the Appellant, in not serving the Notice of Intent in a timely manner, and in making errors of law with regard to the application of the presumption of innocence and stare decisis.

Finding no manifest or determinative error in the Respondent’s decision, the ERC recommended the dismissal of the appeal.

The Commissioner accepted the ERC’s recommendation and found that the Appellant did not establish that the Respondent made any reviewable errors. The Commissioner denied the appeal.