NC-299 - SPAO

The Appellant was subject to a Code of Conduct investigation, based on five allegations of misconduct. A Conduct Authority (Respondent) ordered the stoppage of the Appellant’s pay and allowances. The Appellant appealed the stoppage of pay and allowances (SPA) Order.

On appeal, the Appellant made the following arguments. The Respondent had no authority to initiate an SPA process based on the Appellant’s alleged misconduct. The Respondent breached the Appellant’s right to know the case to be met. The Appellant had no formal opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Respondent erred in law when he applied the reasonable grounds standard as part of the test for the SPA. Finally, the SPA Order caused undue financial hardship to the Appellant’s family.

The ERC found that the Appellant’s argument about the Respondent’s authority to initiate the SPA process was a new argument on appeal, and that it was not in the interests of justice to consider this argument.

The ERC found that the Respondent breached the Appellant’s right to know the case to be met, because the SPA Order referred to two new allegations without giving the Appellant an opportunity to address these new allegations. However, the ERC found that the Respondent’s evaluation of the new allegations did not contribute to the Respondent’s substantive analysis of the test for an SPA Order. As a result, this was one of the rare cases where it was unnecessary to return the matter for a new decision, because doing so would inevitably lead to the same result.

The ERC found that the Appellant had a formal opportunity to respond in the SPA process, and that the SPA process did not require the Appellant to disprove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The ERC found that the Respondent did not err in law when he applied the reasonable grounds standard as part of the test for the SPA, because this was consistent with the test for SPA described in policy.

The ERC found that the Appellant has not provided any evidence of financial hardship, that this claim was inconsistent with his submissions during the SPA process, and that it was not in the interests of justice to entertain this new argument on appeal any further. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.