ALBERTA OFFICER SUES RCMP

Gave seized beer to local firefighters

An RCMP officer in southwest Alberta has spent the past four years suspended with pay after being found to have provided seized beer to the local fire department instead of holding it as evidence.

Const. Charles Clarke, an RCMP officer since 2007, has been off the job with the Crowsnest Pass detachment since the summer of 2014, when he was accused of discreditable conduct over the handling of the illicit booze. An internal Code of Conduct investigation took place and returned with a verdict in June 2016: he was to receive a reprimand and a forfeiture of 35 days of pay.

But Clarke’s RCMP superiors declined to reinstate him and instead appealed the decision.

The appeal has yet to be decided, and Clarke remains suspended. He has now sued the RCMP in Federal Court, arguing breach of contract and seeking a total of $100,000 in damages and lost wages.

According to court documents, the events took place in the Rocky Mountain community of Blairmore around July 17, 2014.

“The allegations arose from an incident where the Plaintiff seized goods after issuing a ticket for unlawful possession of alcohol,” says a statement of defence from the RCMP. “The Plaintiff gave away beer he seized to the local fire department and intentionally did not accurately document his actions.”

In a reply filed in court, Clarke “denies that he intentionally did not accurately document his actions,” but does not elaborate — and does not deny that he gave away the beer.

The documents do not say how much beer was seized, or the brand. They also don’t specify whether the beer was seized from minors or through some other form of unlawful possession. (Clarke’s lawyer had no comment when contacted for this story.)

Clarke was suspended from duty on Aug. 14, 2014, and a Code of Conduct investigation was launched. The RCMP’s Conduct Board concluded that Clarke had committed five violations — including deliberately attempting to mislead in a report, giving away exhibits unlawfully, and giving instructions to “the chief of the fire department to provide false information pertaining to the disposal of the beer.”

The fire chief is referred to in the document only as “Mr. C,” but the man who appears to have been the fire chief at the time did not respond to a message from the National Post. Local news reports show the Crowsnest Pass fire department was going through its own whirlwind of drama, forced into an amalgamation in 2012 that saw the chief fired and a mass resignation. The department changed fire chiefs just days before the beer incident and has had at least two more since then.

The legal action is rooted in what happened after the Conduct Board issued its report in June 2016. The board did not order that Clarke be transferred to a different detachment (which neither party had sought), only imposing the reprimand and the docked pay.

RCMP management appealed the conduct measures, and in December 2016 the matter was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee, an arm’s length federal institution. According to the RCMP’s court statement filed last month, the committee has still not made a decision.

The top RCMP official in Alberta, Marianne Ryan (now retired), made the determination in July 2016 to not reinstate Clarke while the appeal was being heard. That means Clarke has remained suspended with pay since August 2014.

An Alberta RCMP spokesperson said the force doesn’t comment on matters under internal appeal or being litigated in court. In general, an officer being suspended with pay while a conduct investigation takes place is standard procedure, the spokesperson said.

In the documents, Clarke alleges the RCMP is ignoring mitigating factors cited by the Conduct Board, including the nature of the violation, his good performance reviews and his involvement in the local community. He states the Conduct Board suggested that “acrimony” between Clarke and his supervisor may have prevented the matter from being dealt with at the detachment level, rather than being escalated to higher levels of review.

Clarke argues his suspension has denied him the opportunity for promotion to corporal, and says the decision to not reinstate him “was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious in nature.”