C-094 - Conduct Authority Decision

This appeal stems from a complaint and investigation into harassment allegations. An RCMP member (Complainant) had accused the Appellant of harassment, detailing various allegations, which included being ignored, humiliated or disrespected by the Appellant. The Respondent informed the Appellant that the information in the investigation report supported prima facie findings for Allegations 1, 5 and 7 (Allegations). The matter proceeded to a Conduct Meeting. The Respondent found that the Allegations were established on a balance of probabilities, and provided reasons accordingly. Having considered various mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Respondent found that the Appellant’s conduct fell within the normal range of conduct measures for harassment. The Respondent imposed 16 hours’ forfeiture of pay for Allegation 1 and a global sanction of 48 hours’ forfeiture of annual leave for Allegations 5 and 7. The Respondent also deferred the Appellant’s promotion to the rank of Staff Sergeant for a period of one year from the date of the Conduct Meeting.

The Appellant presented an appeal, indicating that the Respondent’s Decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness. The Appellant argued that the conduct proceeding was held outside the limitation period imposed under section 42(2) of the RCMP Act.

The Appellant also described a decision by a senior RCMP member during the harassment investigation process, that the Appellant would not be permitted to work at a different detachment as planned and that his promotion would be held in abeyance. As part of his appeal, the Appellant argued that he should have been issued with a formal Order of Temporary Reassignment, and that the omission of such a document meant that he was not afforded an opportunity to appeal those aspects of his situation.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that various purported delays did not render the Respondent’s Decision procedurally unfair, and that the Appellant’s arguments lacked merit for several reasons.

In addition, the ERC found that an argument put forward by the Appellant, that there may have been a conspiracy to not notify the Respondent of the harassment complaint in the first place, seemingly constituted the presentation of new information on appeal. The ERC found that this information was inadmissible on appeal, as well as speculative.

Further, the ERC found that the Appellant’s argument in relation to section 42(2) of the RCMP Act, was a question of mixed fact and law. The ERC found that the Respondent’s claim concerning the date on which he learned of the Allegations was supported by the record, and that there was no reliable evidence to question the Respondent’s knowledge of the Allegations on the date in question. Therefore, the ERC found that the conduct measures were imposed by the Respondent within the limitation period set out at section 42(2) of the RCMP Act, and as such, this was not clearly unreasonable.

Regarding the decision to reassign the Appellant, the ERC found that the Appellant was presenting two arguments – that the RCMP member in question had no authority to reassign him when there was no proven misconduct, and that the Appellant was not served with an official Order of Temporary Reassignment. The ERC found that the decision to reassign the Appellant was not made by the Conduct Authority, and that the Appellant had not demonstrated that those issues resulted in a decision which fit within the scope of the appeal. The ERC found that the issue raised by the Appellant did not relate to an issue within the conduct process, but rather, could constitute an irregularity which may have been related to the harassment complaint against the Appellant. Even so, the ERC found that this did not bar the review of the appeal on its merits, nor did it demonstrate that the Respondent’s Decision was somehow erroneous.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.

Page details

Date modified: