Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Adjudicator's Decision on Conduct Issues

Date: 20260709 Docket: A-61-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 128 CORAM: [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]. BETWEEN: [NAME], REGIMENTAL NUMBER 68215 Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 18, 2026. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 9, 2026.

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT BY: [NAME]. CONCURRED IN BY: [NAME]. [NAME]. Date: 20260709 Docket: A-61-25 Citation: 2026 FCA 128 CORAM: [NAME]. [NAME]. [NAME]. BETWEEN: [NAME], REGIMENTAL NUMBER 68215 Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT [NAME]. [ 1 ] Following a proceeding before a [NAME], the appellant, [NAME], was found to have engaged in discreditable conduct contrary to the Code of Conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Schedule to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014 , S.O.R./2014-281) and ordered to resign within 14 days or be dismissed. The appellant appealed that decision, but his appeal was dismissed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Conduct Appeal Adjudicator, a delegate of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. [ 2 ] The appellant then applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Adjudicator’s decision. The Federal Court concluded that the decision was reasonable and dismissed the application: [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 72 ( per Blackhawk J.). [ 3 ] The appellant now appeals the Federal Court’s decision to this Court but advances the same arguments he advanced before the Adjudicator and the Federal Court: the [NAME] erred in (i) declining to provide a remedy for an unjustifiable delay, (ii) deciding it did not need to make a finding on all the particulars of the allegations; (iii) weighing the evidence and assessing credibility; and (iv) relying on evidence that was not properly before it. [ 4 ] The appellant accepts that the Federal Court correctly identified reasonableness as the appropriate standard of review for the Adjudicator’s decision but argues the Federal Court incorrectly applied that standard. In this circumstance, we must “step into the shoes” of the Federal Court and review the Adjudicator’s decision ourselves: [NAME] v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2013 SCC 36 at para. 46. [ 5 ] Doing so and assessing the Adjudicator’s decision in light of the record and the appellant’s written and oral arguments, I conclude that the appellant has not met his burden to establish that the Adjudicator’s decision is unreasonable: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para. 100. The Adjudicator considered and fully addressed each of the appellant’s arguments. The Federal Court found the Adjudicator’s decision transparent, intelligible and justified. Without endorsing all the Federal Court’s reasons, I come to the same conclusion and see no basis to intervene. [ 6 ] It is critical to remember that, on judicial review, a court is limited to ensuring the decision is reasonable—that is, based on internally coherent and rational reasoning and justified in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints: Vavilov at para.

85. Absent exceptional circumstances, which are not present here, neither the Federal Court nor this Court can conduct a de novo analysis and substitute its decision for that of the decision maker: Vavilov at paras. 83, 116, 125. In essence, that is what the appellant asked the Federal Court, and now asks this Court, to do. Neither court can. [ 7 ] There is one other issue I must address. The appellant asserts that the Federal Court erred in not granting him a remedy for the delay in his proceedings, including the approximately 45 months that elapsed between the appellant initiating his appeal of the [NAME] decision and the Adjudicator’s rendering a decision on that appeal. That delay appears to be largely attributable to the [NAME], which issued its report to the Adjudicator on July 7, 2022, despite referral to the Committee in February 2020. However, that delay was not the only one. [ 8 ] The events giving rise to the conduct hearing occurred in fall 2014. The [NAME] hearing on the merits of the then alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct did not occur until November 2017. In November 2016, the appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the [NAME] proceeding based on delay. Although the appellant was not granted a stay, the [NAME] as then constituted found the delay to be an abuse of process which, in its view, might be appropriate to consider later in the conduct hearing process. [ 9 ] At the end of the [NAME] hearing, on November 30, 2017, the [NAME] as then constituted delivered its decision orally, but its written reasons were not finalized until December 6, 2018, and not served on the appellant until December 27, 2018. The [NAME] considered the abuse of process as a potential mitigating factor but declined to grant a remedy—an alleged error that the Adjudicator addressed on appeal. [ 10 ] Before the Federal Court, the appellant sought a remedy for the alleged abuse of process arising from the delays, including the delay in the [NAME] process. The Federal Court refused to grant a remedy. It found the first delay was reasonably addressed by the Adjudicator. I agree with that conclusion. [ 11 ] As to the further delay that transpired after the appellant appealed the [NAME] decision, the Federal Court said the appellant should have raised it with the Adjudicator. Having failed to do so, he could not raise it before the Federal Court: Federal Court reasons at paras. 61‑64. [ 12 ] I see no error in that conclusion. I am satisfied that the appellant could have raised the further delay as an abuse of process with the Adjudicator. I accept that the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Conduct) , S.O.R./2014-291, expressly provide that a party may bring a motion before the [NAME]. In contrast, the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) , S.O.R./2014-289, do not. That said, nothing precluded the appellant from raising the issue with the Adjudicator by motion or in correspondence. [ 13 ] In the context of an appeal, the Adjudicator has broad powers. These include the powers to decide all matters related to the appeal, to give any direction that is appropriate if a matter arises that is not otherwise provided for and, in deciding an appeal or any matter arising in the context of an appeal, to accept any evidence a party submits: Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) , ss. 29, 30(2), 32. In fact, during the appeal process, both the appellant and the respondent brought motions seeking relief from an adjudicator. But the appellant did not bring a motion for a stay or seek any other relief from the Adjudicator based on the further delay. [ 14 ] In saying this, I acknowledge that the appellant sent emails to the [NAME], and those emails were in the record before the Adjudicator. However, they ask the Committee for status updates, an explanation for its delay in issuing its report, and ultimately, in early May 2022, for the Committee to issue its report. Notably, they do not ask for a stay or any other relief based on delay. [ 15 ] Failure to raise a known procedural flaw, defect or irregularity in an administrative process with the administrative decision-maker constitutes a waiver of the flaw, defect or irregularity, such that it cannot be raised in a judicial review of the administrative decision: [COMPANY]. v. Bell Canada , 2024 FCA 121 at para. 58 and cases there cited. Therefore, the Federal Court made no reviewable error in denying the appellant relief based on the further delay. [ 16 ] Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal. I would award the respondent costs in the all‑inclusive lump sum amount of $1,000, which I find appropriate having regard to the parties’ submissions on costs. "[NAME]" J.A. “I agree. [NAME].” “I agree. [NAME].” FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-61-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME], REGIMENTAL NUMBER 68215 v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT BY: [NAME]. CONCURRED IN BY: [NAME]. [NAME]. DATED: JULY 9, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Appellant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Alberta For The Appellant [NAME] of Canada For The Respondent