C-044 - Conduct Authority Decision
The Appellant parked her police jeep inside the parkade of a hotel where she and other on-duty members were staying during an operation. She left several items overnight unsecured in the jeep, including her loaded RCMP pistol, three loaded magazines and a target sheet containing protected information. The items were stolen. They were later recovered by local police. The Force opened a Code of Conduct investigation into whether the Appellant: mishandled Force weapons, contrary to section 4.6 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 1); and failed to safeguard protected information, contrary to section 9.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 2). The Force and local police also launched independent statutory investigations into the Appellant's actions.
The Appellant was ordered temporarily reassigned to administrative duty for the duration of the Code of Conduct process, which lasted around six months. She felt this measure was "punitive" and "isolat[ing]" because it lasted longer than it needed to and caused her to miss opportunities.
Following the Conduct Meeting, the Respondent decided that both allegations were established. He ordered a forfeiture of six days' leave for Allegation 1 and forfeitures of two days' leave and two days' pay plus a direction to take a course for Allegation 2. Notably, at the Conduct Meeting and in his decision, the Respondent referred to unidentified case law involving a stolen RCMP weapon that was used in a criminal offence. On appeal, the Appellant urged that: i) the length of the conduct process and her temporary reassignment were procedurally unfair; ii) the Respondent discussed unidentified case law at the Conduct Meeting and in his decision that she lacked enough information to address; and iii) the conduct measures she received were too severe.
ERC Findings
The ERC did not find merit in the Appellant's positions. First, nothing about the length of the conduct proceeding or temporary reassignment was inordinate or oppressive. The Conduct Authority had a year to impose conduct measures on the Appellant after learning of her identity and alleged violations. That time limit was respected. Moreover, the RCMP did a good job completing the Code of Conduct process as quickly as it did. The Appellant's behaviour was serious. It resulted in two police forces conducting three separate investigations. The Appellant remained employed at all times, albeit in roles she found limited and tedious. Although this may have been hard for her, it was not procedurally unfair, punitive or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances. Second, the Respondent did not reference unidentified case law in the decision for the purpose of bolstering a conduct measure. He referred to it to impress upon the Appellant how perilous it is to leave a loaded weapon unsecured and how fortunate it was that nobody was hurt or killed as a result of her misconduct. If the Appellant believed during the Conduct Meeting that the Respondent was basing a conduct measure on case law with which she was unfamiliar, she could have objected and sought copies of the case law to review and address, or even asked for an adjournment. Third, the Respondent applied the correct test for determining conduct measures. His reasons for imposing the conduct measures he ordered were clear, considered and consistent with principles set forth in the RCMP's Conduct Measures Guide.
ERC Recommendations
The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated December 18, 2020
The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:
In August 2019, the Appellant was on duty conducting an operation with other RCMP members. Her RCMP vehicle which did not contain a lockbox was left unattended overnight in the parkade of the hotel she was staying at. The Appellant chose to store her loaded pistol in a backpack, which was then left under a seat in the vehicle. The next morning, the Appellant noticed that one of the vehicle's windows was broken and the vehicle had been broken into. The backpack containing the loaded RCMP pistol had been stolen, along with three loaded magazines, a baton, handcuffs and keys. A target sheet containing personal information about a suspect in an ongoing operation was also stolen. The Appellant promptly reported the loss of the items to her superior. An investigation by the municipal police service of jurisdiction ensued. A statutory investigation into the Appellant's actions was also commenced. Eventually, the stolen items were recovered and the individual responsible was arrested.
A Code of Conduct investigation was initiated. The original Conduct Authority was later succeeded by a superior, and eventually, by the Respondent. The investigation report was forwarded to the Respondent for review. Following a Conduct Meeting, the Respondent found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant had failed to secure weapons, contrary to section 4.6 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 1), and mishandled protected information, contrary to section 9.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 2). As conduct measures, the Respondent imposed a forfeiture of six days' leave for Allegation 1, and forfeitures of two days' leave and two days' pay, as well as a direction to the Appellant to complete a security awareness course, for Allegation 2. The Appellant appealed the conduct measures.
The case was referred to the ERC for a review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator agreed, finding that the conduct measures imposed were not procedurally unfair or clearly unreasonable.
The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conduct measures imposed by the Respondent.
Page details
- Date modified: