C-011 - Conduct Authority Decision
Following the arrest of a suspect, the Appellant drafted a Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC). He wrote that the information leading to the arrest was obtained from four human sources. He also wrote that each source was reliable and had given him information on over 100 occasions. The suspect was prosecuted and later pled guilty to a lesser charge. During a subsequent internal investigation, the Appellant admitted that he erred by stating in the RTCC that each of the four human sources had given him information over 100 times. He explained that he should have written that each human source had given him and other members information over 100 times. He apologized for his error, said it was typographical and attributed it to the pace of the office.
Two allegations were raised but one was later declared unfounded. The allegation in question (Allegation #1) stated that the Appellant violated section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct by placing inaccurate information in the RTCC. After an investigation, the Respondent received an Investigation Report based on roughly 800 pages of evidence. A conduct meeting was held at which the Respondent took the Appellant's written submission and said he would seek guidance. The Respondent implied the Appellant would be able to offer oral submissions involving the allegations and possible conduct measures at a further conduct meeting. Yet no such opportunity was provided. The Respondent released a decision hours before the time limit for so doing expired and allegedly described the situation as his error.
The Respondent determined that the Appellant contravened section 8.1 of the Code of Conduct by placing inaccurate information in the RTCC. The Respondent explained that the Appellant's conduct was both negligent and dangerous. The Respondent imposed two conduct measures: a forfeiture of five days' pay and a direction not to handle human sources for six months. The next day, the Respondent indicated that he was replacing the forfeiture of pay with a forfeiture of annual leave, to harmonize the Appellant's conduct measures with those ordered in another case. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent stated that he had not reviewed any of the hundreds of pages of evidence which had been marshalled for him, other than the Investigation Report.
ERC Findings
The ERC found that the Respondent imposed a forfeiture of five days' pay on the Appellant and that, as a result, the appeal is referable to the ERC pursuant to paragraph 45.15(1)(a) of the RCMP Act. The ERC stated that the forfeiture of pay was imposed in a manner consistent with relevant authorities, that the forfeiture of annual leave was not and that other authorities prohibited the Respondent from modifying the Record of Decision in this case.
After addressing some other less critical preliminary matters, the ERC turned to the merits.
The ERC found that the Appellant's right to procedural fairness was irreparably breached when he was denied an appropriate opportunity to discuss his views on the allegations and potential conduct measures at a conduct meeting. The conduct meeting contemplated under the Conduct Policy is central to the conduct process. It is the one opportunity for a member to address in person an allegation and to discuss with a conduct authority any potential conduct measures. In order for a conduct meeting to fulfill its role in the conduct process, a member must receive a full opportunity to make submissions. The meeting cannot, without a member's consent, be limited to written submissions only. The Appellant had a legitimate expectation that he would receive an opportunity to make oral submissions at a conduct meeting.
The ERC also found that the Respondent did not properly hear the matter before him, contrary to Conduct Policy provisions and the principles of procedural fairness on which they are based. The Respondent admittedly failed to ensure his decision was fully informed by all the evidence. The ERC further found that the record neither revealed an apprehension of bias on the part of the Respondent nor a failure by the Respondent to consider the Appellant's written submission.
The ERC concluded that, on the date he issued his decision, the Respondent should have made no finding or found that both allegations were not established, as the Appellant did not have the opportunity to comprehensively provide oral submissions on the allegations and the conduct measures, contrary to the conduct process established by the Force. This breach of procedural fairness cannot be rectified at this stage of the proceeding.
ERC Recommendations dated May 24, 2016
The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the appeal and make the finding that Allegation #1 is not established. The ERC also recommended to the Commissioner that he allow the appeal in respect of the conduct measures imposed on the Appellant by the Respondent and rescind the conduct measures.
Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated August 3, 2016
The Commissioner, or a delegate, has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:
The Appellant appeals the Respondent's finding that one allegation of false, misleading or inaccurate statements to a superior contrary to section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, was established. He also appeals the conduct measure administered on that contravention. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC's findings and recommendation to allow the appeal on the Allegation and find Allegation #1 not established. The Appellant' right to procedural fairness was seriously and irreparably breached. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator also agreed with the ERC that the appeal of the conduct measures should also be upheld and accordingly rescind the conduct measures.
Page details
- Date modified: