C-055 – Conduct Board Decision

This is an appeal by a Conduct Authority requesting the Respondent be directed to resign within 14 days or face dismissal from the Force.

The Respondent was charged with two allegations of unwanted touching on two female members at a team building function. The Respondent, while highly intoxicated, had touched a female member and attempted to do the same to a second female member. The Respondent appeared before a Conduct Board (Board) where the two allegations of discreditable conduct were deemed established under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct.

The Board found that dismissal was disproportionate in regards to the mitigating factors and imposed 35 days' forfeiture of pay. In addition, the Board ordered continued treatment and other conduct measures.

The Appellant appealed the conduct measures imposed and requested that the Respondent be dismissed from the Force. The Appellant submitted that the Board made an error of law in finding that assault or harassment in the workplace did not occur, which resulted in lesser conduct measures. Further, the Appellant argued that the Board failed to properly assess the evidence.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that the Board did not err in not assessing whether the member had committed harassment as that was not the allegation before the Board and that the Conduct Authority cannot add new allegations orally during the proceedings or on appeal. The ERC agreed with the Appellant that under normal conditions, dismissal in these circumstances may have been the appropriate conduct measure. However, the Board was obliged to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors when making its determination as to appropriate conduct measures. There was overwhelming and compelling mitigating evidence in favour of the Respondent, to determine that dismissal was not appropriate here.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated March 21, 2022

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

A conduct board found the Respondent had contravened the RCMP Code of Conduct after finding two allegations of discreditable conduct to be established. The allegations relate to events that occurred at an evening “team-building” function where the Respondent consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication. The Appellant submitted that the allegations, which the Respondent did not deny, met the definition of sexual assault. The Appellant sought the Respondent’s dismissal from the Force.

The Appellant held the position that the Board intentionally misclassified the Respondent’s actions as “unwanted sexual touching”, describing him as an “intoxicated pub patron” with the intent of imposing lesser conduct measures. The Board made no error by not classifying the Respondent’s conduct as sexual harassment. The Appellant sought to garner a re-weighing of the evidence.

The Appellant alleges that the Board gave more consideration to the letters of support for the Respondent than the victim impact statement and argues that one of the victim’s impact statement was “trivialized in comparison to the attention given to each and every personal reference of the subject member, none of whom were directly impacted by his behaviour.” The Board was in the best position to determine the weight of the evidence and I see no justification to intervene. I agree with the ERC that the Board did not commit a reviewable error in identifying and reaching the appropriate sanctions.

The Board described and carefully assessed a number of aggravating and mitigating factors prior to imposing conduct measures. I accept that the Board’s decision on conduct measures does not give rise to a manifest and determinative error, and is not unreasonable. I confirm the conduct measures imposed by the Board.

I direct the Appellant to arrange suitable sensitivity training for the Respondent and once completed, I direct the Respondent to send letters of apology to the Appellant without delay so they can be provided to the two female members. The appeal is dismissed.

Page details

Date modified: