Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused solely on the sanction imposed, not the finding of misconduct.

• Procedural fairness was challenged, specifically the absence of an oral hearing.

• The applicant waived his right to an oral hearing, which undermined the procedural fairness claim.

• Credibility of support letters was contested but not deemed determinative by the court.

• The court found the RCMP Board acted within its discretion in imposing the measures.

• Costs awarded to the Respondent, with no damages claimed or granted.

Facts and outcome of the case

Constable Ashley Goodyer, an RCMP officer, applied for judicial review of a disciplinary decision rendered by the RCMP Commissioner. The case stemmed from allegations of misconduct between June and November 2016, including disobeying lawful orders, discreditable conduct, and failure to provide accurate accounts in his duties. A Conduct Board found that most of these allegations were established and imposed disciplinary measures: forfeiture of 20 days’ pay and an order to resign within 14 days or face dismissal. Goodyer appealed the sanction, not the underlying findings of misconduct.

The Commissioner upheld the majority of the disciplinary measures but rescinded the forfeiture of pay, finding the Conduct Board lacked authority to impose both a dismissal and a pay forfeiture for the same misconduct. Goodyer subsequently sought judicial review of this outcome in Federal Court.

In court, Goodyer argued that his right to procedural fairness had been breached due to the lack of an oral hearing during the conduct measures phase. He also contended that the Conduct Board erred in evaluating aggravating and mitigating factors, and that it failed to properly assess the credibility of support letters submitted by RCMP colleagues and supervisors.

The court found that the applicant had knowingly waived his right to an oral hearing and had not objected when given the opportunity to do so. Therefore, his claim of a procedural fairness violation lacked merit. Additionally, the court held that the Conduct Board was not required to assess credibility through oral testimony since the factual disputes were not central to the disciplinary outcome. The court also concluded that the Commissioner had acted within her authority, applied the appropriate legal standards, and made a reasonable decision based on the record.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and awarded costs to the Attorney General of Canada. The amount of costs was not specified in the judgment and would be determined if not agreed upon by the parties. No damages were awarded, as none were sought.