Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the RCMP Conduct Adjudicator to decide the appeal under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was critically examined.

• The reasonableness of the adjudicator’s decision, particularly regarding statutory interpretation, was found lacking.

• Application of the correct part of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) for suspension appeals was disputed.

• The mootness doctrine was addressed after the suspension order was rescinded and the applicant reinstated.

• Procedural fairness and the adequacy of the adjudicator’s analysis of the applicant’s submissions were questioned.

• The court awarded costs to the successful party as agreed by the parties.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and facts

Jordan Irvine, a Corporal with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), was alleged in August 2017 to have breached the RCMP Code of Conduct. He was transferred to administrative duties but retained his rank, salary, and benefits. On June 12, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner initiated a conduct hearing under subsection 4(1) of the RCMP Act and issued an order suspending Mr. Irvine from duty with pay. Mr. Irvine appealed the suspension order on June 27, 2018, and requested disclosure of the information considered in issuing the suspension order. His request for disclosure was denied in a decision dated April 22, 2022, but that decision was not under review in this proceeding. On November 28, 2018, the Conduct Board found that the allegation against Mr. Irvine had not been established, rescinded the suspension order, and reinstated him retroactively to the date of suspension.

Proceedings before the conduct adjudicator

The Conduct Adjudicator rejected Mr. Irvine’s jurisdictional challenge and held that there was no longer a live controversy because the Conduct Board had determined the allegation was not established, the suspension order had been rescinded, and Mr. Irvine had been reinstated retroactively in 2018. The adjudicator stated that her authority to hear and decide the appeal was grounded in Part IV of the RCMP Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, and the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), among other instruments. She relied on the definition of “adjudicator” in section 36 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) and section 2.2 of the Administration Manual.

Key legal issues and court’s analysis

The court found that the Conduct Adjudicator’s explanation for her jurisdiction was not reasonable or correct. The court determined that the adjudicator relied on the wrong part of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), specifically Part 3, which did not apply to Mr. Irvine’s appeal. The relevant provisions were found in Part 2. The court concluded that the chain of analysis regarding jurisdiction was incorrect and therefore unreasonable. The court also addressed the issue of mootness, noting that the adjudicator gave little to no analysis as to whether the appeal should be heard despite being moot, particularly in light of the ongoing issues raised by Mr. Irvine, such as lost overtime income, career impacts, and the presence of the suspension order on his records.

Outcome

The court granted Mr. Irvine’s application, set aside the decision under review, and remitted the appeal back to the Commissioner. The applicant was awarded costs of $1,250.00 as agreed by the parties. No damages were awarded.