C-033 - Conduct Authority Decision
During a traffic stop of a motorhome, the Appellant seized currency from one of the three passengers of the motorhome as potential proceeds of crime. The passenger from whom the currency was seized stated at the time of the seizure that the seized currency contained a certain amount of money. The seized currency became an exhibit in a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) investigation. When the Appellant attempted to return the currency 16 days after the date of the traffic stop, he counted the currency in front of the passenger and found that there was a different amount in the exhibit bag than the amount that the passenger had stated when currency was seized. She disputed the amount of currency that the Appellant had counted. Given that there was a dispute about the amount of currency in the exhibit bag and no further documentation had been provided by the passenger to verify the source of the currency, the Appellant returned the currency to the Detachment for the purpose of civil forfeiture.
Following a Code of Conduct investigation and a conduct meeting, the Conduct Authority issued a written decision where he found that the Appellant did not properly handle an exhibit, contrary to section 4.4 of the Code of Conduct. The Conduct Authority imposed conduct measures of two days’ forfeiture of pay and a direction for the Appellant to review and discuss applicable policies with his supervisor related to the handling of currency and negotiable instruments.
The Appellant is not appealing the Conduct Authority’s finding that the Allegation was established. He is only appealing the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority. The Appellant alleged that the Conduct Authority’s decision was clearly unreasonable as the conduct measures imposed by the Conduct Authority were too severe and that the Conduct Authority failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors when imposing those measures. The Appellant also alleged that the Conduct Authority’s decision contravened the principles of procedural fairness but he did not provide any submissions in support of this ground of appeal.
ERC Findings
The ERC applied the three-part process set out the Conduct Policy and Conduct Measures Guide (Guide) to analyze the appropriateness of the conduct measures, and found that the conduct measures imposed on the Appellant by the Conduct Authority were not clearly unreasonable. The Conduct Authority identified a broad range of conduct measures he would consider imposing in the Notice of Conduct Meeting. The Conduct Authority’s identification of both mitigating and aggravating factors in his decision is supported by the record and not influenced by irrelevant considerations. The conduct measures selected by the Conduct Authority reflected the severity of the misconduct and were not a departure from the pattern of discipline identified in either the Guide or in a prior similar case.
ERC Recommendation
The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that she deny the appeal in respect of the conduct measures and confirm the conduct measures of two days' forfeiture of pay and a direction for the Appellant to review and discuss applicable policies with his supervisor related to the handling of currency and negotiable instruments pursuant to subsection 45.16(3)(a) of the RCMP Act.
Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated April 16, 2020
The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:
The Appellant was subject of an investigation in which it was found that he contravened section 4.4 of the Code of Conduct. The Respondent imposed conduct measures of two days' forfeiture of pay and direction for the Appellant to review and discuss applicable policies with his supervisor related to the handling of currency and negotiable instruments.
The Appellant presented his appeal, arguing that the Respondent's decision was procedurally unfair and was clearly unreasonable.
The matter was referred to the ERC. The Chairperson recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal and confirm the conduct measures as applied by the Respondent.
In agreement with the ERC, the Adjudicator determined that the Appellant had not established that the Respondent's decision to impose the aforementioned conduct measures contravened procedural fairness or was clearly unreasonable. In finding no reason to interfere with the Respondent's decision, the adjudicator denied the appeal and in accordance with paragraph 45.16(3)(b) of the RCMP Act, confirmed the imposed conduct measures.
Page details
- Date modified: