Publication ban: Any information that could identify the Complainant and Witness I.G. in the present decision may not be published, broadcast or transmitted in any way.

rOYAL cANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

 

IN THE MATTER OF

a conduct hearing held pursuant to the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC, 1985, c R‑10

Between:

Designated Conduct Authority for “E” Division

(Conduct Authority)

 

and

Constable Amarinder Grewal

Regimental Number 64376

 

(Subject Member)

 

CONDUCT BOARD DECISION

Sabine Georges

(Conduct Authority Representative)

Brad Kielmann

(Subject Member Representative)

CONDUCT BOARD: Kevin Harrison

DATE: August 28, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS 2

INTRODUCTION 1

Publication ban 1

ALLEGATIONS 2

WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY 6

Applicable legal principles 6

Assessment of witness credibility and reliability 7

Subject Member 7

The Complainant 8

Witness I.G. 10

REASONS FOR DECISION 11

August 12, 2021, events 12

Relationship from August 12, 2021, to October 4, 2021 14

October 4, 2021, events 16

ANALYSIS 24

Acts constituting the behaviour for Allegation 1 25

Acts constituting the behaviour for Allegation 2 27

Behaviour likely to discredit the Force 30

Behaviour sufficiently related to duties and functions to provide the Force with legitimate interest in disciplining the Subject Member 31

Conclusion on Allegations 32

DECISION 32

 

SYNOPSIS

On March 14, 2023, the Subject Member was served a Notice of Conduct Hearing, dated February 6, 2023, which contained 2 Allegations under section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct. Allegation 1 alleged that the Subject Member deliberately operated his personal vehicle in a dangerous manner, thereby endangering the Complainant, who was a passenger in the vehicle. Allegation 2 alleged that the Subject Member threatened the Complainant with harm and/or threatened to release explicit photographs of her. Both Allegations are alleged to have occurred on October 4, 2021, while the Subject Member was off duty.

On February 2, 2024, having heard from three witnesses, including the Complainant, and the Subject Member, the Conduct Board found that neither Allegations were established.

INTRODUCTION

[1] On September 27, 2022, the Conduct Authority signed a Notice to the Designated Officer, to request the initiation of a conduct hearing in relation to this matter. On September 29, 2022, the Designated Officer appointed me as the Conduct Board, per subsection 43(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC, 1985, c R‑10 [RCMP Act].

[2] The Notice of Conduct Hearing contains two Allegations of discreditable conduct under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. Allegation 1 alleges that the Subject Member deliberately operated his personal vehicle in a dangerous manner, thereby endangering the Complainant, who was a passenger in the vehicle. Allegation 2 alleges that the Subject Member threatened the Complainant with harm and/or threatened to release explicit photographs of her. Both Allegations are dated October 4, 2021. The Subject Member was off duty that day. The Notice of Conduct Hearing was served on the Subject Member on March 14, 2023.

[3] After hearing evidence from three witnesses, including the Complainant and the Subject Member, as well as considering the Parties’ submissions in the allegations phase of the conduct hearing, I find that neither Allegation is established for the reasons that follow.

Publication ban

[4] The Conduct Authority requested a publication ban relating to the Complainant. The Subject Member asked for a publication ban relating to Witness I.G. Each Party consented to the other’s request.

[5] As a matter of practice, conduct boards anonymize their decisions when referring to victims, complainants, minors or any other person not acting as an RCMP employee in the ordinary course of their duties. Nevertheless, paragraph 45.1(7)(a) of the RCMP Act provides for a conduct board to order a publication ban on its own initiative or at the request of a party for information that could identify a complainant, a witness or a person under the age of 18.

[6] Pursuant to that authority, I ordered at the start of the Conduct Hearing that any information that could identify the Complainant or Witness I.G. shall not be recorded, transmitted or broadcast in any way.

ALLEGATIONS

[7] The Conduct Authority signed the Notice of Conduct Hearing on February 6, 2023. It contains the following two Allegations:

Particulars relevant to all allegations

1. At all material times, [the Subject Member was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) posted to E division, Surrey Detachment.

2. [The Subject Member] met [the Complainant] while she was working as a complaint taker in the Surrey Operational Communications Centre (OCC).

3. [The Subject Member and [the Complainant] started dating on or about February 20, 2020.

4. They engaged in a romantic relationship, which lasted approximately 18 months until August 2021.

5. [The Complainant] had submitted applications to become a police officer, including one to work at the RCMP.

6. [The Subject Member] was a reference for [the Complainant] on those applications.

7. In August 2021, [the Complainant] learned that [the Subject Member] was married and had children.

8. [The Complainant] called [the Subject Member]’s wife to confirm [the Subject Member] was indeed married.

9. [The Complainant] then ended the romantic relationship with [the Subject Member].

10. At the time of the events described below, [the Subject Member] was off duty.

Allegation 1

On or about October 4, 2021, at or near Langley, [British Columbia], [the Subject Member], while off-duty, deliberately drove his personal vehicle in a dangerous manner, endangering [the Complainant]. It is therefore alleged that [the Subject Member] has engaged in discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

Particulars of Allegation 1

11. A few days prior to October 4, 2021, [the Complainant] called [the Subject Member] to ask him not to answer calls if he were contacted as a reference on her application and to make sure he had deleted intimate pictures of her.

12. On October 4, 2021, [the Subject Member] and [the Complainant] met at the Langley Event Centre, in the city of Langley, British Columbia. [The Complainant] initially wanted to talk to [the Subject Member] and ask him not to act as a reference anymore on her job applications. [The Subject Member] insisted that they meet in person. [The Complainant] arrived on location first and parked her car in the north lot parking lot near 80 Avenue.

13. [The Subject Member] arrived later in a Ford pick-up truck.

14. [The Complainant] got into [the Subject Member]’s truck. They drove to the east parking lot at Langley Events Centre.

15. A few minutes later, a car screeched into the parking lot coming right at them and stopped before hitting the truck’s passenger side door.

16. [The Subject Member] recognized his wife’s car and drove out the parking lot to escape his wife.

17. [The Subject Member] drove southbound on 202A Street, and [Witness I.G.] followed. Traffic was slow because this area is a school zone with a speed limit of 30 [kilometres per hour]. [The Subject Member] switched into the northbound lane and continued southbound directly into oncoming traffic. Vehicles that were approaching in the northbound lane were forced to pull off the roadway, and the other drivers were honking their horns.

18. [The Subject Member] then took a sudden right turn into 73A Avenue, cutting off traffic as he turned.

19. [The Subject Member] stopped his truck and ordered [the Complainant] to exit the vehicle.

20. [The Complainant] exited the vehicle and [the Subject Member] drove away.

Allegation 2

On or about October 4, 2021, at or near Langley, [British Columbia], [the Subject Member] threatened [the Complainant] with harm and/or threatened to release explicit photographs of [the Complainant]. It is therefore alleged that [the Subject Member] has engaged in discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

Particulars to Allegation 2

21. [The Subject Member] eventually returned to the area where he had left [the Complainant], and approached her as she was walking out of an alley onto 74 Avenue.

22. [The Subject Member] rolled down his passenger window and started to yell at [the Complainant] as she was on the street.

23. [The Subject Member] made numerous threatening comments to [the Complainant], including:

• “I’m going to fuck you up!”.

• “You better watch your back from now on!”.

• “I’m gonna ruin your reputation!”.

• “I’m gonna make sure no police agency hires you!”.

• “Remember, I have those photos, I didn’t delete them”.

24. The photos that [the Subject Member] was referring to were intimate and personal photos that he took of [the Complainant] being minimally clothed, nude, or engaged in sexual activity with him.

25. [The Complainant] had asked [the Subject Member] on numerous occasions to delete the photos. [The Subject Member] sometimes indicated that he had deleted them, but other times he was vague about whether or not he had done so. However, on October 4, 2021, it was clear to [the Complainant] that [the Subject Member] was claiming that he had them, further confusing her about whether or not he in fact still had these pictures.

26. [The Subject Member] also threatened [the Complainant] by saying:

• “I’m going to make sure to make your life hell!”.

• “You don’t know who I know!”.

• “I know where you live, I know where you work, I know what you drive, I know where your grandma lives!”

27. [The Subject Member] also said that if he lost his kids, he would “lose his shit” on her and he “would come after her”.

28. [The Complainant] walked away from [the Subject Member]. He then called her on her phone and said:

• “I’ll get you, you’ll be sorry!”

• “This isn’t over; you haven’t heard the last of me!”

29. [The Complainant] told [the Subject Member] that she did not appreciate him threatening her.

30. The Subject Member] replied that he did not threaten her and that nobody would believe her if she reported it.

31. The call ended. [The Subject Member] tried calling [the Complainant] two more times, but she did not answer the phone.

32. [The Complainant] was “really scared” and hid in the woods nearby for about 15 minutes to make sure that [the Subject Member] was gone and that she could to back to her car safely.

33. [The Complainant] took the threats seriously and feared for her safety as [the Subject Member] made worrying comments to her in the past:

a. [The Subject Member] once choked her during consensual sexual intercourse to a point where she almost passed out. He made comments including” “Could you imagine if I actually put pressure?” or “Could you imagine if you just died right here”.

b. [The Subject Member] would make comments on multiple occasions about how “he was super alpha” and made comments about choking or playing choking saying, “Could you imagine? I could easily kill you!”.

c. [The Subject Member] told [the Complainant] about an arrest that he had made of a “low-end dealer”. While in the police car, the dealer uttered threats towards [the Subject Member]. [The Subject Member] told [the Complainant] that he parked the car in a dark area, pulled the suspect out of the car and punched him in the ribs a couple of times.

d. [The Subject Member] would always tell [the Complainant] stories about how he would “sneak in” a punch here or there as if it were a joke to him, saying: “Well, if you don’t listen, you’re gonna get a punch snuck in here or there”.

e. [The Subject Member] told [the Complainant] that he ran a background search on her before they started dating and that he could find her if she moved because he would just query her.

34. [The Complainant] also took [the Subject Member]’s threats seriously and feared for her safety because she knew that [the Subject Member] had personal firearms, he had told her that he was not afraid to use them and that he kept a knife in the [sunglass’s] holder of his vehicle.

35. As a result of a criminal investigation into the circumstances reported by [the Complainant], [the Subject Member] was arrested on October 14, 2021 for Uttering Threats ([section] 264.1 of the [Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C‑46 [Criminal Code]]); he was released on the same date after signing an Undertaking.

36. Crown Counsel approved the criminal charge of Uttering Threats. However, [the Subject Member] reached an agreement with Crown Counsel to resolve the matter via the Alternative Measures provisions within [section] 717 of the Criminal Code. In doing so, [the Subject Member] accepted responsibility for the acts that formed the basis of the Uttering Threats offense ([section] 264.1 of the Criminal Code) that he was alleged to have committed.

[Sic throughout; footnotes omitted]

[8] Per subsection 45(1) of the RCMP Act, my role as the Conduct Board is to decide whether each Allegation under the Code of Conduct is established. The Conduct Authority has the onus of establishing the Allegations on a balance of probabilities. This means that I must find that it is more likely than not that the Subject Member contravened the Code of Conduct. This burden is met when sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent evidence is presented.

[9] The Conduct Authority need not prove every Particular set out in the Notice of Conduct Hearing as some are included simply to give context to the Allegations.

WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY

Applicable legal principles

[10] In assessing witness credibility and reliability, I must consider whether the witnesses are credible and whether their evidence is reliable. I may find a witness credible, but unreliable. It is open to me to accept some, none or all of a witness’s evidence on a given point. In assessing credibility, I must consider the totality of the evidence. I cannot base my assessment of a witness’s evidence solely on their demeanour. Rather, I must determine whether the witness’s evidence is consistent with the most probable interpretation of the surrounding facts. The determination of whether a witness’s evidence has an air of reality is subjective, but it must be grounded on the totality of the evidence. Finding that one party is credible may be a conclusive result on important issues, because believing one party will mean explicitly or implicitly that I do not believe the other party.

Assessment of witness credibility and reliability

[11] During the allegations phase of the Conduct Hearing, I heard:

• The Complainant who testified on behalf of the Conduct Authority;
• Witness I.G., who is the Subject Member’s wife and testified on the Subject Member’s behalf;
• The Subject Member, who testified on his own behalf.

In reaching the following credibility assessment of these witnesses and the reliability of their evidence, I have considered the Representatives’ extensive submissions.

Subject Member

[12] I found the Subject Member to be a credible witness and his evidence reliable for essentially the same reasons presented by the Subject Member Representative. Like any other member facing dismissal, he had a vested interest in the outcome of the Conduct Hearing. Nevertheless, he spoke confidently. He was forthright and consistent in his evidence. He had no difficulty recalling the events of both August 12, 2021, and October 4, 2021. He made admissions about his behaviour and his role in what occurred. He did not portray the Complainant in a negative light. Most importantly, his evidence accords with the objective evidence.

[13] The Conduct Authority Representative claimed that the Subject Member Representative’s examination led the Subject Member to desired answers. During the Conduct Hearing, I asked the Subject Member Representative to open up his examination several times at the Conduct Authority Representative’s request. However, I did not find that he was leading the Subject Member to any significant degree and certainly not inappropriately. Most of his closed questions were set-up questions for a follow-up, open-ended question. Others addressed a specific issue that required a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Other questions may have resulted in a simple “yes” or “no” answer but provided the Subject Member an opportunity to expand on the answer if he wished, which he did several times. For the most part, I found his examination to be proper and efficient.

[14] My only concern with the Subject Member’s evidence is that it was very similar to Witness I.G.’s. The mandate letter for the Code of Conduct investigation and the Temporary Reassignment Order served on the Subject Member informed him that he was not to discuss this matter with any possible witnesses or complainants. The Subject Member admitted that he discussed the matter with Witness I.G. in general terms despite this direction. He was adamant that he did not provide Witness I.G. access to any paperwork associated with the investigation.

[15] I find that it would have been impossible for the Subject Member to follow the direction not to discuss the matter with Witness I.G., a potential witness, to the letter. He had a lot to explain to her. She had a reasonable expectation that he would provide those explanations. Despite the similarities in their evidence, I have no proof that they contrived their evidence. I also note that Witness I.G. was never approached to provide a witness statement in this case.

The Complainant

[16] I found that the Complainant’s evidence was neither credible nor was her evidence reliable for the most part.

[17] The Conduct Authority Representative conceded that she was not a perfect witness and provided several reasons for this, which included her age, her concern about the impact of her personal attendance at the hearing on her RCMP cadet training,[1] and an anxiety attack allegedly brought on by the number of people in the Conduct Hearing room when she arrived.

[18] The Complainant stated repeatedly that she only recalled the traumatic events and had little recollection of other events. However, even in the traumatic areas, she was not consistent. She also repeatedly stated that her memory had faded due to the passage to time, she was tired, and that she did not have sufficient time to prepare for her testimony.

[19] I appreciate that the day the Complainant testified was a long day for her. She appeared tired during cross-examination. She was evasive and combative. As the Subject Member Representative pointed out during the Conduct Hearing, it was difficult to ascertain whether her inadequate responses or her refusal to respond to some questions was because she was tired or because she was being obstructive. I believe it was a combination of both tending toward the latter.

[20] The Complainant was also understandably emotional throughout her evidence.

[21] She testified to several things that did not appear in her statement or in other evidence. For example, a crosswalk and children crossing the road on October 4, 2021. As pointed out by the Subject Member Representative, her evidence was internally inconsistent.

[22] Her evidence relating to the Subject Member’s driving in Allegation 1 was vague and lacked details.

[23] With respect to the Subject Member’s alleged threats, the Subject Member Representative identified inconsistencies in the threats recorded in the Complainant’s personal notes and in her disclosures to various people, including Ms. C.B., Mr. G.K., investigators in her statement, and the interview with the Conduct Authority Representative in preparation for the Conduct Hearing and her evidence at the Conduct Hearing.

[24] Her evidence also does not accord with the objective evidence and the evidence of the Subject Member and Witness I.G. in several of the critical areas.

[25] I did not find the Subject Member Representative’s cross-examination confusing as was suggested by the Conduct Authority Representative. It was methodical and thorough. I find that when the Complainant did express confusion was during the moments when she was being obstructive or uncooperative.

[26] The material presented to the Complainant during her testimony was not excessive. Witness I.G. and the Subject Member were presented the same documents, keeping in mind that some of those documents were entered by the Subject Member. I provided the Complainant several opportunities to review documents during the Conduct Hearing.

[27] With respect to her ability to prepare, I find that the Complainant had adequate time to do so. As pointed out by the Subject Member Representative, she met with the Conduct Authority Representative a week prior to the Conduct Hearing. I accept that training at Depot Division can be busy and trying; however, I do not find that to be a reasonable excuse for her lack of preparation.

[28] I conclude by saying that my overall impression of the Complainant is that she was not invested in delivering her testimony. She expressed reluctance to attend the Conduct Hearing in person prior to being served a summons. In fact, she threatened to retain legal counsel to prevent her from appearing before me in person. A senior officer at Depot had to intervene and rightfully instruct her that she was required to attend the Conduct Hearing in accordance with the summons I issued.

Witness I.G.

[29] I found Witness I.G. to be a credible witness and her evidence to be reliable. I acknowledge that she had a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding. It could have resulted in the loss of the income and benefits flowing from the Subject Member’s employment. Witness I.G. said she wanted to vouch for her husband, but she also said that her interest was having the truth told. She spoke confidently; she was forthright and consistent in her evidence. She did not waiver under cross-examination. She had no difficulty recalling the events of both August 12, 2021, and October 4, 2021. Her evidence was also consistent with the objective evidence.

[30] She admitted that she discussed the matter with the Subject Member. Both Witness I.G. and the Subject Member were clear that they did not delve into the particulars of the evidence. I am satisfied that she had only a general knowledge of the matters relating to the investigation prior to providing her testimony.

[31] I note that her evidence pertains primarily to contextual facts. I found her evidence relating to the Subject Member’s driving on October 4, 2021, of little to no value. Furthermore, she had no direct knowledge of any threats that the Subject Member may have made to the Complainant.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[32] I have considered the Code of Conduct investigation report and supporting material, the Subject Member’s response to the allegations, the evidence I heard and received during the Conduct Hearing and the Parties’ submissions on the allegations to reach the following findings of fact.

[33] At all material times, the Subject Member was a member of the RCMP posted to “E” Division, Surrey Detachment.

[34] The Subject Member and the Complainant began a relationship in early 2020. They met while the Complainant was working in the Surrey Operational Communications Centre. Their initial contact was work-related but continued on a personal level.

[35] Their shifts occasionally overlapped. This facilitated further communications between them. The Complainant informed the Subject Member that she wished to become a police officer. The Subject Member offered to assist her. He provided her with his personal telephone number.

[36] The Subject Member and the Complainant began “hanging out”. This included casual dates for dinner and walks with the Subject Member’s dog. They also communicated regularly by telephone, text message or Snapchat.

[37] The casual relationship quickly progressed into an intimate relationship, which included a weekend in Whistler and a night at a downtown Vancouver hotel on August 8, 2021.

[38] During their relationship, the Complainant sent the Subject Member intimate photographs of herself. I have no credible evidence that the Subject Member solicited these photographs. Photographs were also taken during their sexual acts.

[39] The Complainant believed that she and the Subject Member would marry despite having never met each other’s parents and the Subject Member’s ambivalence to the idea.

[40] The Complainant applied to several police services, including the RCMP. She claimed that the Subject Member was a reference in those applications. The Subject Member denied this. The Conduct Authority presented no independent evidence to prove this; therefore, I am unable to decide either way.

August 12, 2021, events

[41] On August 12, 2021, the Subject Member was injured in an on-duty motor vehicle collision. Following a supervisor’s direction, he attended the hospital to obtain medical treatment. The Subject Member informed the Complainant about this. She was working as a Nursing Unit Assistant in the hospital that day.

[42] The Complainant accessed the Subject Member’s medical profile held by the hospital. The records listed a spouse, Witness I.G., as his next of kin. Throughout their relationship, the Subject Member denied that he was married. The Complainant became quite upset when she realized that she had been “played” for a year and a half.

[43] The Complainant provided several reasons for accessing the Subject Member’s medical profile. All of them are problematic. She was not working in the emergency department that day, but in another unit. She testified that her job required her to access the records of patients in emergency to determine where they would be going afterwards. It was also part of her job to make up charts for patients based on their profile. In cross-examination, the Complainant admitted to not being asked to prepare the Subject Member’s chart, which she had claimed in her statement was the reason for accessing the information.

[44] The Complainant also claimed that the Subject Member asked her to access his medical records. This is not credible. The Subject Member was trying to hide his marriage from her. He would have known that his next of kin was listed in his records. He would not have wanted the Complainant to learn he was married. I find the most likely reason she looked at his chart was curiosity.

[45] The Complainant admitted the inappropriateness of her actions. The Conduct Authority Representative conceded that she breached the Subject Member’s privacy. The important fact is that she accessed the Subject Member’s medical records and learned he was married.

[46] The Complainant confronted the Subject Member by text message. She included photographs of his medical records that showed his spouse as his next of kin with the accompanying comment “I knew it”. The Subject Member tried to explain his way out of the situation. He pleaded with the Complainant, by text message, not to call Witness I.G. He informed the Complainant that he had children and that he needed to explain.

[47] A nurse working with the Complainant took it upon herself to check Witness I.G. on Facebook. She located a photograph of the Subject Member and Witness I.G. on their wedding day. The Complainant sent the photograph to the Subject Member with the comment “Lmao dude your [sic] so fucked”. I was told “Lmao” means “Laughing my ass off”.

[48] The Subject Member and the Complainant spoke by telephone after the Subject Member was released from hospital. During this conversation, the Complainant asked the Subject Member to send her $500. Much was made of this during the Conduct Hearing. The Subject Member and the Complainant had different perspectives on this.

[49] The Complainant acknowledged that she asked the Subject Member for the money. She paid for the hotel room for their August 8, 2021, liaison. The Subject Member agreed to reimburse her for this. She had additional expenses for transportation and gifts. She asked for the money then because she felt she would never speak to the Subject Member again. Her credit cards were “maxed out”. She needed the money to pay her credit card bill.

[50] The Subject Member said the Complainant demanded the money. Although she did not say it was to keep her from telling his wife about their relationship, he felt that if he did not pay her she would. He transferred the money to the Complainant later that evening.

[51] Both stories are plausible. I do not have enough evidence to decide either way; however, I am inclined to accept the Complainant’s version because it makes more sense. It is possible that the Subject Member misconstrued the Complainant’s intentions in making the request at that time.

[52] The Complainant contacted Witness I.G. by telephone to confirm that the Subject Member was married. The Complainant informed Witness I.G. of her relationship with the Subject Member and apologized for the situation. They shared information. The Complainant and Witness I.G. exchanged more information via text messaging following this telephone conversation. Witness I.G. asked the Complainant to provide photographs; however, the Complainant had nothing that would be incriminating for Witness I.G.’s purposes but “would get him in some heat” at work. The Complainant and Witness I.G. agreed to keep their contact between themselves.

[53] Witness I.G. contacted the Complainant the following day through Snapchat and asked the Complainant for evidence of the Subject Member’s infidelity. I have no evidence that any was ever provided.

Relationship from August 12, 2021, to October 4, 2021

[54] The Subject Member and the Complainant maintained contact between August 12, 2021, and October 4, 2021. However, I cannot establish the true nature of their relationship.

[55] In direct examination, the Complainant testified that they had no contact after August 12, 2021. However, later she said they exchanged text messages in which the Subject Member indicated that he would not be with his wife much longer. In cross-examination, she confirmed the text messages but could not recall if they spoke by telephone, met in person or had sexual relations during this time.

[56] The Subject Member testified that he tried to distance himself from the Complainant after August 12, 2021. However, he still had feelings for her. He was also concerned that if he did anything to upset the Complainant that she would tell his wife about their relationship. He and the Complainant remained in contact. They met from 2 to 4 times for sexual relations during this time.

[57] I find the Subject Member’s admission of continuing the relationship with the Complainant and his explanation for doing so credible. He was in a difficult position. He did not know that his wife already knew about his infidelity. The Complainant’s failure to recall any contact by telephone or in-person meetings, which included sexual interludes, is not credible.

[58] Prior to October 4, 2021, possibly on October 3, 2021, the Complainant contacted the Subject Member to request that they meet. The Complainant testified that she wanted to speak to the Subject Member about being a reference in her applications to police services, the intimate photographs she had sent him, and to retrieve personal belongings. I find these reasons are somewhat spurious.

[59] I do not accept that the Complainant wanted to speak to the Subject Member to ask him not to be a reference in her applications to police services because all she had to do was provide the police services the name of a different reference. She did not need to discuss this with the Subject Member.

[60] I accept the Complainant’s evidence that a recruiter from a police service she had applied to told her that if she knew of anyone with compromising photos of her that she should get them to delete them. The Complainant asked the Subject Member several times to delete the photographs she had sent him. He told her that he had, but she did not believe him. I also accept that the Subject Member deleted the photographs shortly after receiving them because he did not want them on his cellular phone. The Subject Member had no control over whether the Complainant believed him.

[61] The Complainant also testified that the Subject Member repeatedly threatened to expose the photographs; however, she provided no specifics about these threats. She simply spoke in generalities. The Conduct Authority presented no independent evidence that the Subject Member retained the photographs or that he threatened to release them. Exposing the photographs while their relationship was ongoing made no sense for two reasons. First, it would have served no purpose. Second, he was trying to hide the relationship from his wife. Exposing the photographs may have exposed their relationship as well.

[62] The Complainant may have wanted to meet the Subject Member in person to obtain final confirmation that he had deleted the photographs but an in-person meeting was not necessary.

[63] With respect to the collection of personal items, the Subject Member testified that he would not have kept the Complainant’s personal items in his truck because his family had access to the vehicle. Again, this makes sense since he was trying to hide his relationship with the Complainant from his wife.

October 4, 2021, events

[64] The Subject Member was off duty on October 4, 2021, but he told Witness I.G. that he had to attend a training session in Langley. She had no reason to disbelieve him. The Subject Member left the house at approximately 3:45 p.m. to conduct some personal business before going to Langley.

[65] Witness I.G. received a telephone call at 4:15 p.m. from an unidentified female caller, who told her that the Subject Member and the Complainant were meeting at the Events Centre in Langley (the Events Centre) at 5 p.m. Witness I.G. felt this was an opportunity to catch her husband in the act.

[66] Witness I.G. believed the caller was the Complainant. However, the Complainant denied making the telephone call. I find that either the Complainant or someone on her behalf called Witness I.G. This is not only a plausible explanation, but it is the only explanation provided for how Witness I.G. came to be at the Events Centre that day. Witness I.G. had planted the seed for setting the Subject Member up with the Complainant during their first conversation.

[67] Surveillance video recorded what took place in the north and east parking lots at the Events Centre, beginning at 5:09 p.m.

[68] The Complainant arrived in the north parking lot before the Subject Member. When the Subject Member arrived, he parked his pickup truck beside the Complainant. She left her vehicle and got into the passenger side of the Subject Member’s truck. The Subject Member drove away at a normal rate of speed shortly after.

[69] Witness I.G. had arrived in the north parking lot at 5 p.m. She took up a vantage point from which she observed what occurred after the Subject Member arrived. When the Subject Member drove away, she followed.

[70] The Subject Member drove to the east parking lot of the Events Centre with Witness I.G. a few car lengths behind with one or two vehicles between them. Once in the east parking lot, the Subject Member backed into a parking spot and stopped. Within a short time, Witness I.G. drove up.

[71] The Complainant’s evidence about what took place in this parking lot is problematic. It was contradicted by the Subject Member, Witness I.G. and the surveillance video.

[72] She testified that Witness I.G.’s vehicle approached them at a high rate of speed with the tires squealing. She stopped just short of hitting the front passenger’s door of the truck. She brought Witness I.G.’s arrival to the Subject Member’s attention by asking “Is that your fucking wife?” When the Subject Member recognized his wife, he drove away. The Complainant indicated that it felt like the Subject Member struck Witness I.G.’s vehicle as they were pulling away. “Skimmed” was the word she used. The Subject Member gained speed quickly after he pulled out of the parking space.

[73] The Subject Member testified that Witness I.G. pulled up facing the driver’s side of his truck. She stopped about 6 to 10 feet away. When he saw her, he panicked and just wanted to extricate himself from the situation and avoid a confrontation between his wife and the Complainant. He did not mention hitting Witness I.G.’s vehicle as he left.

[74] Witness I.G. testified that she pulled up to the driver’s side of the Subject Member’s truck. She left sufficient room for the Subject Member to get out of his truck. She was getting out of her vehicle as the Subject Member drove away. She did not mention the Subject Member hitting her vehicle when he left.

[75] The surveillance video showed that Witness I.G. pulled up to the driver’s side of the Subject Member’s truck. The Subject Member had no difficulty driving straight out of the parking space, which indicates that Witness I.G. stopped a distance from his truck. Witness I.G. is shown opening her driver’s door as the Subject Member is driving away.

[76] The Subject Member’s departure from the parking spot was not erratic. He did not travel at an excessive speed while his vehicle was still observable in the video footage. He drove toward the parking lot exit.

[77] The Complainant’s evidence about the subsequent drive is again problematic. She was vague and had difficulty recalling important details. She did not mention the posted speed limit or how many vehicles the Subject Member passed. She could not say how fast the Subject Member drove. She could not recall if the Subject Member failed to stop at stop signs or red lights. She provided little or no evidence about the weather, the road and traffic conditions or the surrounding area.

[78] She also provided contradictory evidence. For example, in her direct evidence, she testified that the departure from the east parking lot was “around school time”. While in cross-examination, she said school had been out for several hours, which aligns with the time of day. She testified that children crossing the road caused vehicles to slow down but was not consistent as to where they encountered them. She had not mentioned these children in her original statement. She only mentioned the existence of a crosswalk in cross-examination.

[79] The Subject Member provided more detailed evidence. I accept significant portions of his evidence, particularly where it coincides with the Complainant and Witness I.G. and the objective evidence. The Google maps entered into evidence at the Conduct Hearing also assisted me in determining details of the drive.

[80] The Subject Member had to wait for a vehicle to turn left before he could turn right out of the east parking lot onto 202a Street. He saw his wife turn onto 202a Street behind him. He checked his mirrors frequently. Two or three vehicles were in front of him. The lead vehicle was driving slowly. There was an oncoming vehicle at a distance. Despite the double solid line prohibiting passing, the Subject Member assessed the risk of a collision as low, so he passed the vehicles ahead of him. He was only in the oncoming lane briefly. I do not find that he forced any vehicles off the road or caused them to veer out of his way or that any of the drivers honked their horns, as the Complainant said they did.

[81] The side road 202a Street runs parallel to the busier 200 Street. The portion of 202a Street driven by the Subject Member was a single lane for both north and southbound traffic. The lanes were divided by a double solid yellow line. The road was straight with no hills. I have no evidence of any other impediments to visibility, so I find that the Subject Member had a clear line of vision for some distance up the street.

[82] The 202a Street is bordered on the west side by a middle school, a secondary school and a large bush area that extends to 74th Avenue. A soccer field is situated on the east side of the middle school, so the school is between the sports field and 202a Street. Sporting activities, if any, in the middle school grounds would have been quite distant from 202a Street. Despite the presence of the two schools and the sports field, I have no evidence other than the Complainant’s that there were children near or crossing the road. The Subject Member testified that he saw no children or sports activities during the drive.

[83] I have no evidence relating to the posted speed limit on 202a Street other than the Subject Member’s evidence that he returned to the area after the incident and determined that it was 50 kilometres per hour. Despite the presence of the two schools, I also have no evidence that there were posted school zones that would have reduced the posted speed limit. Or, if there were, then there may have been enforcement hours. The Subject Member Representative told me that the speed limit in a school zone is only in effect between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. I am aware that this differs if the area is designated as a playground area, which has extended hours. I was also provided no evidence independent of the Complainant that there was a crosswalk on 202a Street or that they encountered any stop signs or red lights.

[84] The 202a Street is bordered on the east side by widely spaced residential properties with a significant amount of green space. Most of the houses are set back from the road with long driveways. With the exception of the two schools, I consider this area to be a predominately rural area.

[85] Witness I.G. testified that she followed the Subject Member two to three cars behind because a vehicle had pulled out in front of her. This supports the Subject Member’s claim that he only passed two vehicles. She turned right at 76th Avenue because she thought the Subject Member had turned there. While behind the Subject Member, she commented that he drove according to traffic. As she could no longer see him, she went back to the Events Centre and parked. She then called the Subject Member from there.

[86] The Subject Member turned right on 73a Avenue into a residential area. He pulled over to the curb, stopped, then told the Complainant to get out. I do not accept that the Complainant jumped out of the vehicle while it was still moving as she said she did. The Subject Member dropped the Complainant off here because he thought it was a safe place. Although this was approximately a kilometre away from her vehicle, I have no evidence that it was not. The Subject Member then drove off.

[87] After he dropped the Complainant off, the Subject Member turned onto 202 Street and stopped. Witness I.G. had called him. He wanted to return her call. During this conversation, he learned that Witness I.G. and the Complainant had spoken previously and that Witness I.G. was aware of his affair. Witness I.G. also informed him of the telephone call she had received telling her about the meeting. Witness I.G. also gave him an ultimatum. It was either the Complainant or her and the children. They agreed to meet.

[88] While the Subject Member was talking to Witness I.G. on the telephone, the Complainant walked through an alley to 74th Avenue because it was the natural route back to her vehicle. After the Subject Member finished his telephone call with Witness I.G., he also ended up on 74th Avenue because this was the way back to 202a Street. When he saw the Complainant walking, he pulled up near her and rolled down the passenger window to speak to her.

[89] Again, the Complainant’s evidence about what happened next was problematic. She testified that people in the driveway of a neighbouring residence were looking at them. The Subject Member was very aggressive. He knew she had told his wife. He uttered the following threats:

• I will make you regret this.
• I am going for you.
• Watch your back.
• You will pay for this.
• You don’t know how much you will pay for this.
• You don’t know who I know.
• Any chance you had to be a police officer; I will make sure you are never going to be a police officer.

[90] She said that the Subject Member continued to circle the area after having driven away. He called her twice from his personal phone. She told him to leave her alone. He also called twice with a “no caller id”. She was afraid because he had previously told her he always had a loaded firearm and kept a knife in his truck. She entered a nearby forest. It was getting dark. She did not feel safe in the forest, yet she remained there for half an hour. She then walked back to her vehicle.

[91] In cross-examination, the Complainant testified that she called several friends after the Subject Member dropped her off. Ms. C.B. was the first to answer. She said that Ms. C.B. heard the threats made by the Subject Member but later said that she was not sure if she was on the telephone when the Subject Member made the threats. She was also very uncertain about the timing of telephone calls in relation to the Subject Member’s alleged threats and her entering the woods. Her uncertainty about the sequence of events was because she had not “thought about it until now”. Furthermore, she could not recall what she told Ms. C.B. during their two telephone calls that lasted over 40 minutes total.

[92] The Subject Member testified that he saw no one else around when he confronted the Complainant on 74th Avenue. He confronted the Complainant about setting him up and asked why she did it. He called her a “bitch”. She responded by saying that he knew what he was doing. He said that he was going to sue her for accessing his medical records. The Subject Member repeated this in cross-examination, adding that what the Complainant did was unprofessional and a breach of his privacy.

[93] He insisted that he made no other threats and made no reference to the intimate photographs the Complainant had sent him. He was speaking loudly. He was upset. The conversation lasted 5 to 10 seconds. He then drove off to meet his wife. After he left, he called the Complainant on the telephone twice because he was baffled and in disbelief. He called her a “c***” and told her he didn’t want to speak to her again. He made no threats during the telephone call.

[94] Telephone records indicate that the Subject Member called his wife at 5:23 p.m. The telephone call lasted 3 minutes. The telephone records also show that the Subject Member called the Complainant twice at 5:26 p.m. Both calls were recorded at one minute in duration[2]. Given the timing of these calls, I find that the conversation between the Subject Member and the Complainant on 74th Avenue would have been very short. From the telephone records, I also find that the Subject Member did not make the two calls that the Complainant received from the “no caller id” telephone numbers.

[95] I find that, after leaving the Complainant on 74th Avenue, the Subject Member went to meet his wife. He did not circle the area. His focus was rightly on going to meet his wife to explain.

[96] I also find that Ms. C.B. did not hear the Subject Member threaten the Complainant. Ms. C.B. did not mention in her statement that she heard the threats. Furthermore, the Complainant called Ms. C.B. after the Subject Member’s two telephone calls to her, which were made after the Subject Member allegedly uttered the threats on 74th Avenue. The calls with Ms. C.B. likely occurred while the Complainant was in the woods for the 15 to 30 minutes she was there and while she was walking back to her vehicle.

[97] I find that the relationship between the Subject Member and the Complainant effectively ended on this day.

[98] On October 5, 2021, the Complainant engaged in a text exchange with a friend, Mr. G.K. He convinced the Complainant to report this matter to the RCMP because it would not look good for her if the incident came out during the application process to become a police officer. The text exchange in the Record is incomplete. From what is in the Record, the information she provided Mr. G.K. does not coincide with the evidence I heard during the Conduct Hearing, including from the Complainant.

[99] On October 14, 2021, the RCMP initiated a Code of Conduct investigation pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the RCMP Act.

[100] The Subject Member was also arrested on October 14, 2021, for uttering threats under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code, following a statutory investigation. He was released on an undertaking the same day.

[101] Particular 36 states that the Subject Member reached an agreement to resolve the criminal matter via the Alternative Measures provisions under section 717 of the Criminal Code. This was apparently done with the Complainant’s consent. Although this is mentioned in the Final Investigation Report, I have no evidence to confirm this. I do have an apology letter to the Complainant written by the Subject Member, which he provided in his response to the allegations. I am told this letter was part of the Alternative Measures agreement.

ANALYSIS

[102] Both Allegations are for discreditable conduct under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. To establish an allegation under this section, the Conduct Authority must establish each of the following elements on a balance of probabilities:

1. the acts that constitute the alleged behaviour;
2. the identity of the subject member;
3. whether the subject member’s behaviour is likely to discredit the Force; and
4. whether the member’s behaviour is sufficiently related to his duties and functions to provide the Force with a legitimate interest in disciplining the member.

[103] I acknowledge that the test set out at page 158 of the Conduct Measures Guide (November 14, 2024, version) has different elements for section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct than the one I have just set out. Since I used the aforementioned test in my Determination of Established Facts, which I issued on November 21, 2023, I will continue to use this version of the test in this case. Moreover, the differences in the two tests make no material difference to my findings in this case.

[104] From the outset, the second element of the test for both allegations as to the identity of the Subject Member is not in question. The first element will take further explanation for each Allegation. I will then address the third and fourth elements of the test together for both Allegations.

Acts constituting the behaviour for Allegation 1

[105] The acts the Conduct Authority says constitute the Subject Member’s behaviour for Allegation 1 are that the Subject Member, while off duty, drove his personal vehicle in a dangerous manner thereby endangering the Complainant, who was a passenger in the vehicle.

[106] The Subject Member Representative provided submissions relating to the test criminal courts apply for dangerous driving. I am not bound to apply these tests in this proceeding. However, criminal court decisions on dangerous driving can assist me in determining whether the Subject Member drove in a dangerous manner.

[107] For a criminal offence of dangerous driving, the driving must be:

[…] in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected in that place; […][3]

[108] Therefore, “the question is whether the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all of the circumstances. The focus [is] on the risks created […], not on the consequences, such as an accident”.[4] Some of the factors to consider in the analysis are:

• the speed attained;
• the traffic conditions;
• the nature of the road; and
• weather conditions.[5]

[109] Driving, objectively viewed as dangerous, will not be sufficient on its own, there must be a marked departure from the standard of care of the reasonable person in the circumstances.[6]

[110] Based on my findings of fact and considering all of the circumstances, I do not find that the Subject Member drove his personal vehicle in a dangerous manner. Although he committed two traffic offences during the drive, his driving was not a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

[111] Both traffic violations were minor in nature. Traffic was light. Although there was an oncoming vehicle, it was a distance down the road. The vehicles passed by the Subject Member were moving slowly, which was supported by the evidence of all three witnesses that there was a traffic backlog.

[112] The Subject Member testified that he checked his mirrors frequently, primarily because his wife was behind him. The Conduct Authority Representative suggested that this distracted his focus on driving. Checking mirrors is part of driving a vehicle. I was provided no evidence that the Subject Member’s mirror checks were more than a normal driving practice.

[113] The weather was clear. The road was straight with no obstructions to the Subject Member’s visibility. School was not in session at the time.

[114] I also believe it is open to me to consider that the Subject Member has been trained to drive by the RCMP and would frequently drive in dangerous situations in his duties. His abilities to assess risk would exceed those of the ordinary citizen. The Subject Member assessed the risk as low.

[115] I do not find that the Subject Member’s actions endangered the Complainant or anyone else. The Complainant’s sensitivities may have been heightened by the fact that she and the Subject Member had just been discovered by the Subject Member’s wife and, instead of remaining in the parking lot to deal with the situation, the Subject Member chose to flee. This was a highly stressful and emotional situation even before the Subject Member began to drive out of the east parking lot of the Events Centre.

[116] On this basis, I find that the Conduct Authority has not established the specified acts on a balance of probabilities. The Subject Member did not drive his personal vehicle dangerously; therefore, he did not endanger the Complainant. Consequently, the Conduct Authority has not established the first element of the test for discreditable conduct for Allegation 1.

Acts constituting the behaviour for Allegation 2

[117] The acts the Conduct Authority says constitute the Subject Member’s behaviour for Allegation 2 are that the Subject Member threatened the Complainant with harm and/or threatened to release explicit photographs of her.

[118] Particular 23 alleges that the Subject Member uttered the following threats to the Complainant when he stopped his vehicle on 74th Avenue and spoke to her:

1. “I’m going to fuck you up!”
2. “You better watch your back from now on!”
3. “I’m gonna ruin your reputation!”
4. “I’m gonna make sure no police agency hires you!”
5. “Remember, I have those photos, I didn’t delete them!”

[119] Particular 33 lists five sub-particulars relating to prior comments made by the Subject Member. These include:

1. The Subject Member choking the Complainant during consensual sexual intercourse to the point where she almost passed out and further comments related to the choking allegedly made by the Subject Member.
2. The Subject Member made comments on multiple occasions about choking or playing choking.
3. The Subject Member told the Complainant about assaulting a prisoner during an arrest.
4. The Subject Member told the Complainant he would “sneak in” a punch with insinuations that he would sneak in a punch on the Complainant.
5. The Subject Member told the Complainant that he ran a background check on her before they started dating.

[120] These particulars are included to contextualize why the Complainant took the Subject Member’s alleged threats on October 4, 2021, seriously and purportedly feared for her safety following the alleged threats.

[121] The Conduct Authority presented no credible evidence that the Subject Member choked the Complainant during consensual sexual intercourse or the comments about choking or playing choking. The Professional Responsibility Unit investigators thoroughly investigated the remaining three items and found no evidence to support the Complainant’s claims.

[122] I have serious concerns with the veracity of the Complainant’s evidence about the threats the Subject Member allegedly uttered. During the course of this proceeding, the Complainant disclosed numerous threats to different people at various times. She was not consistent in her disclosures.

[123] I also question the Complainant’s fear of the Subject Member for several reasons. To start, the threats she testified to are all quite nebulous. None actually threatened physical harm. Then throughout this proceeding, the Complainant was seriously concerned that this incident would harm her chances of becoming a police officer. Furthermore, the Conduct Authority presented no evidence independent of the Complainant’s claim that the Subject Member carried a loaded firearm or a knife in his truck. Finally, during the text exchange the day after the incident, she told Mr. G.K. that, although she was afraid on October 4, 2021, she was not afraid now.

[124] Given the difficulty I had sorting out the Complainant’s claims of the Subject Member’s threats, the only threat that I am prepared to find is that the Subject Member threatened to sue the Complainant for breaching his privacy. Although a lawsuit may have harmed the Complainant’s reputation and prospects of a policing career, it was not a threat to cause physical harm.

[125] I find that the Conduct Authority has not demonstrated the alleged acts that the Subject Member threatened the Complainant with harm and/or threatened to release explicit photographs of her.

Behaviour likely to discredit the Force

[126] The test for discreditable conduct is well established. It is whether any reasonable person with knowledge of the facts, including the realities of policing in general, and the RCMP in particular, would find the conduct discreditable or likely to discredit the Force.

[127] The Conduct Authority Representative did not address this element of the test for Allegation 1. For Allegation 1, the Subject Member Representative simply agreed that passing on a double solid line was a traffic violation, but it did not constitute discreditable conduct.

[128] For Allegation 2, the Conduct Authority Representative simply stated that uttering threats demonstrates a clear and wanton disrespect for the other party and that I have found in previous decisions that this is sufficient to demonstrate discreditable conduct. The Subject Member Representative stated that if I found that the Subject Member uttered threats, then I needed to put them in context. The Subject Member had been, as he put it, “busted by his wife”. He panicked. He was angry. He confronted the Complainant within minutes of finding out that the Complainant had set up his wife’s discovery of his infidelity. This was a moment of intense fear and anger. His thoughts were of losing his wife and children. After October 4, 2021, the Subject Member had no further contact with the Complainant. He caused her no physical harm. He admitted to threatening to sue the Complainant, which was a legal remedy available to him. A reasonable person with knowledge of this case would not find that the Subject Member’s conduct was discreditable.

[129] A violation of a provincial statute may constitute discreditable conduct under certain circumstances. Traffic act violations are a common occurrence. The two committed by the Subject Member essentially occurred simultaneously. The Subject Member admitted that he should not have passed the two vehicles on the double solid line. He would have exceeded the speed limit to do so. I have found that the Subject Member did not endanger anyone by his actions. Despite the higher standard that members are held to, a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts, including the realities of policing in general, and the RCMP in particular, would not find the Subject Member’s conduct discreditable or likely to discredit the Force.

[130] With respect to Allegation 2, the Subject Member was understandably angry. He had just found out that his wife had been aware of his infidelity for some time and that the Complainant had called his wife to tell her about their meeting at the Events Centre. Nevertheless, the only threat I have found the Subject Member made was the threat to sue the Complainant for breaching his privacy. I find that a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts, including the realities of policing in general, and the RCMP in particular, would not find a threat to take legal action under the circumstances is discreditable conduct or likely to discredit the Force.

Behaviour sufficiently related to duties and functions to provide the Force with legitimate interest in disciplining the Subject Member

[131] For the fourth element of the test for discreditable conduct, the Conduct Authority must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the subject member’s behaviour is sufficiently linked to their duties and functions to provide the RCMP with a legitimate interest in disciplining the member.

[132] The Conduct Authority Representative did not address the fourth element of the test for discreditable conduct for either Allegation in her submissions. The Subject Member Representative simply stated that the Subject Member’s driving and his threat to sue the Complainant were not sufficiently related to his employment to allow the RCMP to discipline him.

[133] The Code of Conduct applies to RCMP members’ conduct both on and off duty. Police are held to a higher standard than the general public. Police officers are expected to respect the laws that they enforce at all times, even off duty. However, I do not find that a reasonable person looking at the Subject Member’s actions would find that his ability to perform his duties as a police officer was compromised by the traffic violations he committed or by his threat to sue the Complainant for breaching his privacy.

Conclusion on Allegations

[134] Given the foregoing, I find the Conduct Authority has not demonstrated all four elements of the test for discreditable conduct on a balance of probabilities for both Allegations. Consequently, I find that Allegations 1 and 2 are not established.

[135] Although I have found that neither Allegation was established, I note that this matter was entirely of the Subject Member’s own making. His actions affected numerous people. Likely more than the Subject Member realizes. I hope that he has learned from this experience, and I trust that he will not repeat similar behaviour during the remainder of his RCMP career.

DECISION

[136] I find that Allegations 1 and 2 are not established on a balance of probabilities. Either Party may appeal this decision by filing a statement of appeal with the Commissioner within 14 days of the service of this decision on the Subject Member, as set out in section 45.11 of the RCMP Act and section 22 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), SOR/2014-289.

		August 28, 2025
Kevin L. Harrison Conduct Board		Ottawa, Ontario