An RCMP officer facing allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace has been denied judicial review of an appeal decision that upheld his dismissal. The Federal Court found the adjudicator’s decision “reasonable” and dismissed the application.
The ruling arose from disciplinary action against the officer, W.T., for initiating and participating in sexual activity at an RCMP detachment while on duty. The core issues centred on whether the adjudicator’s conclusions were unreasonable in affirming the original finding that W.T. had violated the RCMP Code of Conduct, and whether the penalties imposed — requiring resignation or dismissal — were excessive. The court determined the adjudicative process was fair, the conclusions were supported by the evidence, and dismissal was warranted given the “serious nature” of the misconduct.
‘Inordinate’ delay
Throughout the matter, W.T. claimed the disciplinary process was tainted by “inordinate” delay, arguing it breached his rights and warranted either a stay of proceedings or mitigation of his penalty. W.T. also argued that the RCMP board overseeing his conduct hearing erred in weighing evidence about consent, improperly relied on statements from other complainants, and unfairly assessed his credibility.
In the decision under review, the adjudicator had concluded that although there was some delay in serving notices and proceeding through the conduct hearing stages, any prejudice stemming from that delay did not warrant setting aside the findings or imposing a lesser penalty.
The court cited the adjudicator’s observation that “the [Applicant] has not demonstrated how the respective Boards erred by not issuing a remedy … in response to the delay.” It also noted that, under Canadian administrative law, concepts such as trial within a reasonable time do not apply in the same way as they do in criminal court.
The court emphasized that its role in a judicial review is “supervisory in nature,” meaning it may only intervene if there is a clear legal error or if a decision is found to be unreasonable. Referencing key principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court underlined that administrative bodies, such as RCMP boards and Adjudicators, have wide discretion and specialized expertise in evaluating misconduct allegations, assessing credibility, and imposing sanctions for Code of Conduct violations.
Misconduct allegations and findings
W.T. admitted to having an ongoing sexual relationship with A, a co-worker at the detachment, while both were on duty. Although A initially engaged in some consensual sexual conduct, she alleged that at least one instance — specifically an act of oral sex in a stairwell — was non-consensual. The conduct authority launched an investigation, resulting in two allegations of “conduct likely to discredit” the RCMP.
During the disciplinary hearing, W.T. acknowledged the inappropriate nature of the workplace relationship but disputed the non-consensual element. The RCMP Conduct Board found that even on the admitted facts alone, W.T.’s actions amounted to discreditable conduct. “The Board,” the decision states, “did not find that the abuse of process met the Blencoe threshold to stay the proceeding.” Instead, the Board ordered W.T. to resign or face dismissal.
Appeal and adjudicator’s review
W.T. appealed, requesting that the adverse findings and penalty be overturned. The matter was referred to the External Review Committee (ERC), which recommended that the RCMP Commissioner’s delegate —the adjudicator — reject the appeal. The adjudicator followed that recommendation and upheld the Board’s findings.
In rejecting W.T.’s appeal, the adjudicator observed there was a 10-month gap between initiating the conduct hearing and formally serving W.T. with the hearing notice. The adjudicator acknowledged that this delay was, in the Board’s words, “problematic” and caused “significant prejudice” given W.T.’s suspension.
Nevertheless, it concluded “the [Applicant] suffered significant prejudice, [but] it did not find that the delay rose to the level that would justify a stay of proceedings.” Furthermore, the Board was “in no way bound” to treat that delay as a mitigating factor at the penalty stage.
Judicial review application
Before the court, W.T. attempted to cast the alleged delay as an abuse of process and argued that the Board failed to provide a remedy. The court rejected this, pointing out that there is “no constitutional right outside the criminal context to be ‘tried’ within a reasonable time.” The court also noted that any remedy for delay in administrative processes must meet a strict threshold under established Supreme Court of Canada cases, which W.T. did not meet.
The court found the Adjudicator was justified in concluding that “if the inordinate delay amounted to an abuse of process, but was not so prejudicial as to warrant a stay, then neither would the delay warrant classification as a mitigating factor sufficient to justify reducing the [Applicant’s] dismissal.” In essence, there was no basis for overturning the Adjudicator’s decision that the penalty was appropriate despite the delay.
Credibility and reweighing the evidence
Addressing W.T.’s criticism of how the Board assessed consent and Ms. A’s testimony, the court reiterated that it does not act as a second-level fact-finder. It cited language from the decision stating, “it is trite law that a decision maker may assess and evaluate the evidence before it and, absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with its factual findings.”
The Board had found Ms. A “not without blemish” but ultimately more credible than W.T. The Adjudicator upheld these findings, and the court explained it owes deference to specialized decision-makers, especially on factual or credibility-based determinations. The court noted that the Board explicitly addressed all inconsistencies and that it was “alive to issues with Ms. A’s testimony, but nevertheless found her more credible.” That choice, it held, was well within the Board’s mandate.
Similar fact evidence and prior discipline
W.T. challenged the Board’s reliance on statements from others who described analogous behaviour by him. However, the court found no procedural unfairness. It cited the adjudicator’s determination that similar fact material had been vetted; W.T. was aware of it and had not objected at the earliest opportunity.
The court did note that the Board erred in stating that W.T.’s conduct had adversely affected the RCMP’s relationship with the city—there was “no modicum of evidence” for that specific finding. Yet the adjudicator deemed this to be a “minor misstep” in an otherwise well-supported conclusion. Other aggravating factors, including W.T.’s prior discipline history and the RCMP’s commitment to preventing sexual harassment, were enough to justify his dismissal.
Final disposition
The court found “the Adjudicator’s reasons are transparent, justifiable, and intelligible.” As such, it dismissed W.T.’s application for judicial review and awarded costs to the Respondent. In doing so, it underscored that mere disagreement with an administrative decision is insufficient to render it unreasonable.
The court concluded the RCMP’s interest in preserving public trust and maintaining professional conduct, combined with W.T.’s admitted on-duty sexual activity, supported the termination imposed.
For more information, see Turner v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 72 (CanLII).
