C-062 - Conduct Authority Decision

The Appellant misused his RCMP status to develop a romantic relationship with a civilian. In doing so, he inadvertently jeopardized a joint investigation that was being performed by the RCMP and a partner police service. The RCMP carried out a conduct investigation. The Respondent reviewed the investigation file and a letter containing the Conduct Advisor’s input. He then held a Conduct Meeting in which he heard and discussed the Appellant’s submissions. 

The Respondent issued a decision (Decision). He found that the Appellant abused his position, contrary to section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation #1). He also found that the Appellant discredited the RCMP, contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation #2). He went on to order a written reprimand for Allegation #1, and a forfeiture of 40 hours’ pay for Allegation #2. 

The Appellant filed an appeal. He argued that he was denied fairness. In his view, the Conduct Advisor exceeded his role, and either decided the case himself or caused the Respondent to be biased. He also argued that the Respondent did not properly explain how the Allegations were established, or why the Appellant received a written reprimand and a forfeiture of 40 hours’ pay.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that the conduct process was not in any way unfair. The Conduct Advisor respected his role, as described in RCMP conduct authorities. His letter offered advice on how to understand and approach the case. It did not counsel the Respondent to make a specific decision. It also did not press him to make a particular finding. Moreover, it was clear from the record that the Respondent prepared, signed and dated a decision in which he engaged with the Appellant’s positions, and gave reasons in his own words. A reasonably informed person who views this case realistically and practically, and thinks it through, would find that it was more likely than not that the Respondent decided matters fairly.

The ERC also found that the Respondent explained how the Appellant abused his position and discredited the RCMP. The Decision contained roadmaps from the evidence and submissions, to the Allegations and the misconduct, to the Code of Conduct violations. Those roadmaps could have been better. However, they did not contain any apparent errors, and displayed reasons that were solid enough to form a tenable line of analysis that supported the Decision.

The ERC further found that the Decision implied why the Appellant received a written reprimand for abusing his position (i.e., Allegation #1). The Respondent set forth eight factors that mitigated this conduct, but only one factor that aggravated it. The disproportionate number of mitigating factors seemingly softened the conduct to the point that a remedial conduct measure sufficed. 

However, the ERC found that the forfeiture of 40 hours’ pay, as ordered by the Respondent, was unreasonable. This was so only because the Decision did not provide a roadmap from the Appellant’s discreditable conduct (i.e., Allegation #2) to the ordering of that conduct measure. The appeal should be allowed in part on this basis. Based on some general principles extracted from the Conduct Measures Guide, the ERC found that two conduct measures should be imposed to address the discreditable conduct. One is a forfeiture of 40 hours’ pay. The other is a direction to reflect on the core RCMP values of honesty, integrity and professionalism.

ERC Recommendations

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow this appeal, in part, on the limited basis that the Respondent did not sufficiently explain why he ordered the Appellant to forfeit 40 hours’ pay for discrediting the RCMP. The ERC further recommended that the Appellant instead receive two conduct measures for this misconduct. One is a forfeiture of 40 hours’ pay, which a fuller analysis showed was suitable. The other is a direction to reflect on the core RCMP values of honesty, integrity and professionalism.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated January 10, 2023

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

The Appellant faced two allegations under the Code of Conduct, namely for failing to act with integrity, fairness and impartiality and to not compromise or abuse his authority, power or position, contrary to section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 1), as well as for conducting himself in a manner likely to discredit the Force, contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct (Allegation 2). Both allegations stemmed from the Appellant’s involvement in an extramarital affair where he provided false information about his identity and regarding his duties with the RCMP.

The Appellant contested the allegations. The Respondent found both allegations established and imposed a written reprimand for Allegation 1 and the forfeiture of 40 hours of pay for Allegation 2. The Appellant appealed the decision and the conduct measures.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s decision contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal of the findings be dismissed and that the appeal of the conduct measures be allowed, on the basis that the Respondent insufficiently explained why he imposed the forfeiture of 40 hours of pay. The ERC recommended a forfeiture of 40 hours of pay, based on a fuller analysis, as well as a direction to reflect on the RCMP’s core values of honesty, integrity and professionalism.

The conduct appeal adjudicator found the Respondent’s decision that Allegations 1 and 2 were established was clearly unreasonable, in that the reasons lacked specifics and held the Appellant accountable for two separate contraventions of the Code of Conduct based on the same set of facts. The adjudicator applied the Kienapple principle.

In redetermination, the conduct appeal adjudicator found Allegation 2 established. As for the conduct measures, the adjudicator imposed a reprimand and the forfeiture of 40 hours of pay, but rejected the ERC’s recommendation to impose a direction to reflect on the RCMP’s core values.

Page details

Date modified: