NC-018 - Administrative Discharge

The Appellant was found guilty of a criminal act and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

A Preliminary Recommendation was made to the Employee Management Relations Officer (“EMRO”) that the Appellant be discharged from the Force by reason of having been convicted of an offence that is punishable by indictment. The EMRO then made a formal Recommendation to the Respondent that the Appellant be discharged from the RCMP, relying on the ground identified in the Preliminary Recommendation.

The Respondent had the Appellant served with a Notice of Intent to Discharge a Member (“NOI”). The Respondent then ordered that the Appellant be discharged pursuant to paragraph 20.2(1)(g) of the RCMP Act, which stipulates that a member may be discharged on grounds other than a contravention of a provision of the Code of Conduct. The Respondent relied on the following ground set out in section 6 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Employment Requirements) (CSO-ER): being convicted of an offence that is punishable by indictment.

The Appellant filed an appeal of the Order to Discharge. The appeal was referred to the ERC.

The ERC considered whether the Appellant’s appeal was referable to the ERC pursuant to subsection 17(d) of the RCMP Regulations (2014) (Regulations). Subsection 17(d) involves the appeal of a written decision to discharge or demote a member under paragraph 20.2(1)(g) of the RCMP Act on three specific grounds: disability, unauthorized absence (or departure) from duty or conflict of interest.

Paragraph 20.2(1)(g) of the RCMP Act, when read in conjunction with section 6 of the CSO-ER, enables the Commissioner to discharge or demote a member on a number of different grounds, but only three of those grounds are contained in subsection 17(d) of the Regulations. As the discharge order in this matter did not relate to one of those three grounds, there was no requirement that the appeal be referred to the ERC.

This non-conduct appeal is not a matter that must be referred to the ERC. As a result, the ERC did not review the appeal further or make a recommendation.

The Commissioner agreed that the appeal was not referable to the ERC and sent the appeal to the appropriate decision maker.