RCMP |
Thériault v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
T-2371-03
2004 FC 1506, Lemieux J.
1/11/04
27 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner dismissing applicant's appeal of disciplinary sanction imposed by Adjudication Board, namely, obligation to resign from RCMP--Pursuant to suspicions of contravention of Code of Conduct member of Anti-Gang Section of Montréal Urban Community Police Department having concerning applicant, RCMP opening internal investigation into applicant's alleged activities--Two alleged contraventions of RCMP Code of Conduct: acting as night manager of Bellevue bar and restaurant, frequented by biker gangs, and attempting to facilitate drug transaction-- Following investigation, applicant summoned to hearing by Adjudication Board--Applicant arguing initiation of hearing out of time because well before date of initiation, chief superintendent, who was officer in charge of criminal investigations (OCCI) but then acting as interim appropriate officer, had been informed of contraventions alleged against him--Under Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (Act), s. 43(8), "No hearing may be initiated by an appropriate officer . . . after the expiration of one year from the time the contravention and the identity of that member became known to the appropriate officer"--Act, s. 2(2), (3) providing "appropriate officer" means such officer as is designated by commissioner in respect of member--Under Commissioner's Standing Orders, commanding officer of division having this role for purposes of Act, s. 43(8)--Chief superinten-dent testifying having no connection with internal affairs, which were responsibility of Headquarters and having never discussed internal investigation or results with commanding officer--Adjudication Board finding Chief Superintendent not acting commanding officer but officer in charge of criminal investigations when learning of applicant's alleged conduct; that knowledge under scheme of Act, s. 43(8) must be acquired by person "then serving at the time when that knowledge was acquired by him"--Limitation period applying to appropriate officer to initiate hearing only where formal disciplinary action contemplated--Analogy may be drawn between limitation period in Act, s. 43(8) and limitation period for civil action which begins to run only when person learns of material facts giving rise to action--Parliament's intention in Act, s. 43(8) striking balance between promptness and equity in treatment of disciplinary cases and sound administration of disciplinary justice--Degree of knowledge required by s. 43(8) in order to start running of limitation period going beyond mere unsubstantiated allegations emanating from outside police department, referring to results of investigation performed internally--Evidence in record supporting Adjudication Board's conclusion--Chief Superin-tendent not having necessary level, degree of knowledge under s. 43(8) to start computation of limitation period when occupying duties of appropriate officer--Evidence showing that only information Chief Superintendent had of applicant's identity and nature of alleged contraventions emanated from SPCUM--Division commander informed of facts concerning allegations against applicant only at meeting with representative of appropriate office and one-year limitation period starting only then--Mattering little whether person in position of appropriate officer when having knowledge of necessary information to start s. 43(8) limitation period is permanent incumbent, interim or temporary holder-- Application dismissed--Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, s. 2 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 8, s. 1), 43(8) (as am. idem, s. 1(6)).