NC-081 - Stoppage of Pay and Allowances

The Appellant appealed a decision by the Force ordering the Stoppage of his Pay and Allowances (SPA). The Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Order (SPAO) was imposed as a result of Code of Conduct allegations that had been brought against the Appellant regarding his “sign off” on [X]’s custodial timesheets for hours she did not work, resulting in the Appellant’s misuse of government funds. A statutory investigation into the Appellant’s alleged fraud was initiated and the Appellant was charged with fraud and breach of trust by public officer.

The Appellant argued that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Order a Stoppage of Pay and Allowances was deficient and this resulted in procedural unfairness to the Appellant. The Appellant stated that the NOI was deficient because it did not set out the grounds to order the SPA and the NOI was issued solely because the Appellant was charged with offences under the Criminal Code. The Appellant was of the view that the Respondent’s SPAO was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent failed to show the clear involvement of the Appellant and the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient. The Appellant argued that the Respondent made an error of law by reversing the onus of proof.

The ERC found that the appeal was referable and was presented within the relevant time limitation period. Regarding the merits, the ERC found that:

• The NOI set out the grounds upon which a SPAO would be made. Procedural fairness was not breached because the Appellant’s ability to respond was not compromised given that the particulars contained in the NOI, read in conjunction with the two investigation reports, provided the Appellant with sufficient notice of the case the Appellant had to meet;
• There was no indication in the NOI that the criminal charges were a focal point considered by the Respondent when issuing the NOI;
• When the SPAO is read in conjunction with the material in the investigation reports, the Appellant’s clear involvement in the alleged misconduct is established. The Respondent’s consideration and rejection of the Appellant’s argument that he was not clearly involved in the alleged misconduct is supported by the evidence in the record;
• The Respondent’s reasons were sufficient because they clarified how the criteria for issuing a SPAO were met. While the SPAO was very brief, it provided a sufficient roadmap that linked the evidence in the investigation reports to the Respondent’s finding that the criteria of clear involvement was met; and
• The Respondent did not impose the onus of proof on the Appellant to show that [X] worked the required minimum hours claimed on her timesheets.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal because the Respondent’s decision to order an SPA did not contain any errors of law, was not clearly unreasonable and was not reached in a manner that was procedurally unfair.

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

The Appellant presents an appeal challenging the decision of the Respondent to issue a Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Order (SPAO) pursuant to paragraph 22(2)(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC, 1985, c R-10. The SPAO was imposed by the Respondent following allegations brought against the Appellant that he “signed off” on his wife’s custodial timesheets for hours that she did not work, thereby exhibiting discreditable conduct and inappropriate use of government-issued equipment and property.

The Appellant is appealing that decision pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(c) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Conduct), SOR/2014-291, and paragraph 37(e) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), SOR/2014-289. On his Statement of Appeal form, the Appellant submits that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law, and is clearly unreasonable.

In accordance with subsection 33(1) of the RCMP Act and paragraph 17(e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014, SOR/2014-281, the appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for an independent review. In a report issued on October 13, 2021 (ERC file NC-2021-010 (NC-081)), the Chair of the ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The adjudicator agrees with the ERC that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the SPAO was issued in a manner that breached procedural fairness, is based on an error of law, or is clearly unreasonable. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal.