CANADA ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED

) POLICE ACT, R.S.C., 1985, CHAPTER R-10, AS AMENDED

) BY 33-34-35, ELIZABETH II, CHAPTER 11

BETWEEN:

THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER “F” DIVISION

and

CONSTABLE K.R. GREGSON, REG. NO. 46861

BOARD MEMBERS:

Superintendent R. Codère, Chairperson

Inspector C.M.M. Sanche, Member
Inspector J.R. Knopp, Member

APPEARANCES:

Cpl. Jonathan Hart

for the Appropriate Officer

Mr. Larry McGonigal

for the Member

===============================================

DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATION BOARD

PURSUANT TO PART IV OF THE
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT

================================================

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph

Preliminary matters........................................................................................................................
.......2
On the allegation

Allegation and Evidence (Agreed Statement of Facts)........................................................................3

Submissions on the allegation.......................................................................................

.......................7

Decision on the Allegation.............................................................................................

......................9

On the sanction

Evidence on sanction.......................................................................................................
...................15

Submissions on sanction...............................................................................................................
......35

Decision on sanction..................................................................................................................
.........53

Synopsis of the decision

One allegation of having uttered death threats while armed with a knife was established against the
Member. The mitigating factors were insufficient as to outweigh the gravity of the offence, and
dismissal was warranted. The Member showed no remorse for his actions and offered no apology.
The Board found no indicators of rehabilitative potential and therefore ordered the resignation of
the Member within 14 days, in default of which dismissal would result.
[1] This decision stems from a hearing held before an Adjudication Board in Regina,
Saskatchewan on July 15 and 16, 2008. The Appropriate Officer of “F” Division alleged in a
Notice of Disciplinary Hearing dated May 8, 2007, that Constable Gregson contravened the Code
of Conduct as set out below.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

[2] The Board noted that there was no record of the Member’s having been served with the
Notice of Date, Place and Time of the hearing. The Member has the right to have the hearing held
no sooner than seven days after being served with the Notice. The Member Representative
confirmed the Member’s waiver of this procedural requirement.

ALLEGATION AND AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

[3] The allegation as set out in the Notice of Disciplinary Hearing reads as follows (verbatim):

On or about May 14th, 2006, at or near Regina, Saskatchewan, you conducted

yourself in a disgraceful manner that brings discredit on the Force, contrary to
Section 39 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, (1988).

[4] Constable Gregson, through his Member Representative, indicated that he understood the
allegation and admitted to it.

EVIDENCE

[5] The Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF), a copy of which was received into evidence and
marked as Exhibit AO - 1, reads as follows (verbatim):

1. At all material times Cst. Kevin Gregson (Gregson) was a member of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

2. At all material times, Cst. Gregson was on administrative duties and posted
within the Community Services Section at RCMP “F” Division Headquarters.

3. On May 14th, 2006, Cst. Gregson attended to the Church of Latter-Day

Saints located at 550 Sangster Boulevard in Regina, Saskatchewan and requested an
unscheduled meeting with Bishop Robert Howie (Howie).

4 At approximately 13:45 on that date, Cst. Gregson met alone with Bishop
Howie in his office at the Church. Immediately upon entering the office, Cst.
Gregson demanded that Bishop Howie reinstate his “Temple Recommend”. When
Bishop Howie attempted to explain in some detail as to why he personally felt he
was not yet ready and what steps Cst. Gregson would need to take to in order for
him to have his Temple Recommend reinstated, Cst. Gregson became visibly
frustrated and agitated. Cst. Gregson then proceeded to inform Bishop Howie that
he was: “...just a civilian and I am a cop. I’m not like the rest of you people. Do
 you expect me to cry or something because I’m not going to cry.” Bishop Howie
informed Cst. Gregson that he did not expect him to cry, however, he did expect
him to show some remorse for his actions.

5. Cst. Gregson then pulled out a knife - approximately six to eight inches
long, with a blade of two to three inches - that he had on him, opened it, and placed it on
the desk of Bishop Howie with the blade pointing towards Bishop Howie. Cst. Gregson
then stated to Bishop Howie: “You don’t know how many ways I have been taught to kill a
man. I would rather fight you with this knife than with a pistol. I am better with a knife
than with a pistol. I can take someone out so much faster with this than any other way.”
Cst. Gregson then referred to his specialized training as a police officer both within the
RCMP and training elsewhere, and how he has been taught that a knife is both a tool and a
weapon.

6. Bishop Howie felt threatened and concerned for his safety by Cst.
Gregson’s actions. Cst. Gregson then admitted to Bishop Howie that he was “messed up”
indicating he was under a great deal of stress and fearful of losing his job with the RCMP.
Bishop Howie felt that Cst. Gregson was giving him an ultimatum to either give him what
he wanted or risk losing his life.

7. Bishop Howie continued to talk to Cst. Gregson for another fifteen (15)
minutes about what repentance is and what he needed to do to make some serious changes
in his life. The meeting ended with Cst. Gregson thanking Bishop Howie for not giving
him the Temple Recommend for spiritual reasons and repeating how messed up he is and
then he left.

8. Cst. Gregson was recovering from emergency surgery that occurred on

April 6th, 2006, in which a shunt was inserted into his brain to relieve a life threatening
condition called Hydrocephalus. The condition caused disorientation among other serious
symptoms. Problems with the surgery and continuing symptoms occurred as late as July
2006. Cst. Gregson was given a clean bill of health by Dr. Ekong in a letter dated October
6, 2006.

9. On April 3rd, 2007, Cst. Gregson plead guilty to one count of Uttering
Threats under the Criminal Code for his actions. Three additional similar charges which
related to the threats and the knife were stayed by the Crown. The sentencing Judge,
Provincial Court Judge Henning, accepted a joint submission from counsel and gave Cst.
Gregson a Conditional Discharge with various conditions including probation for 18
months. Judge Henning indicated that a significant factor in sentencing was the medical
condition that Cst. Gregson was suffering from at the time of the incident. Judge Henning
noted he based his agreement of the joint submission upon representations and acceptance
from both counsel. Judge Henning did not have the benefit of any medical evidence being
entered before him for his personal review.

10. The sentencing Judge specifically noted in his decision that Cst. Gregson’s
status as a police officer was not a consideration in his sentencing.

[6] The Appropriate Officer Representative entered into evidence a transcript of the criminal
court proceedings in the Provincial Court for Saskatchewan before Henning PCJ (exhibit AO - 2).
No witnesses were called on the allegation by either the Appropriate Officer Representative or the
Member Representative.

SUBMISSIONS REPRESENTATIONS ON THE ALLEGATION

[7] The Appropriate Officer Representative chose to let the facts contained in the ASF and in
the transcript of the criminal proceedings speak for themselves.

[8] The Member Representative drew the attention of the Board to the guilty plea, which was
entered at the earliest possible opportunity. Circumstances beyond Constable Gregson’s control,
including an employee’s strike and some disclosure issues, prevented a plea from being entered
any earlier.

DECISION ON THE ALLEGATION

[9] The Board followed the well- established test for a finding of disgraceful conduct. The
following facts must be established on a balance of probabilities: one, the identity of the Member
and, two, the act or acts constituting the alleged conduct. The Board must then reach the following
conclusions on a balance of probabilities: one, that the conduct is disgraceful and, two, that the
disgraceful conduct brings discredit on the Force and is thus sufficiently related to the Member’s
duties and functions as to provide the Force with a legitimate interest in disciplining the Member.

[10] The Board was satisfied, taking into account the admission of Constable Gregson and the
Agreed Statement of Facts (the ‘ASF’), that the identity of the Member and the acts constituting
the alleged conduct were proven on a balance of probabilities.

[11] As a general principle, while the burden of proof is that of a balance of probabilities, the
degree of probability that the Appropriate Officer must meet in each discipline case is
commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations and the severity of the consequences faced
by the Member, as noted in Re: Bernstein and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
(1977), 76 D.L.R. (3d) 38 (Ont. Div. Ct.). The Board remained cognizant, throughout this case, of
the need for the Appropriate Officer Representative to prove his case on a balance of probabilities
through clear and convincing evidence.

[12] Whether or not the conduct was disgraceful is a matter of law which must be determined
in its context and in view of all of the circumstances of the case. The term “disgraceful” is by no
means a term of art, and must be given its natural and popular meaning as set out in Hughes v.
Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, 1957, 2 All E.R.

[13] The case of tThe Queen and Archer v. White (1956), S.C.R. 154 at 158, stands for the
proposition that Members of the RCMP have voluntarily agreed to abide by a higher standard of
conduct than the ordinary citizen, although this standard does not call for perfection.

[14] Notwithstanding the fact that the criminal conviction constitutes, prima facie, a disgraceful
act, the Board found that a reasonable person, with knowledge of all relevant circumstances,
including the realities of policing in general and the RCMP in particular, would be of the opinion
that confronting a person, pullingbrandishing out a knife and then uttering death threats against
that person are disgraceful acts that are sufficiently related to Constable Gregson’s employment
situation as to warrant discipline against him. The crux of the employment nexus in the present
case is that the acts in question constituted a breach of the Criminal Code, the enforcement of
which is a primary duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Board found that the
allegation was established.

EVIDENCE ON SANCTION

[15] The Board was advised that the Appropriate Officer was seeking Constable Gregson’s
dismissal in this case. In support of the sanction sought, two witnesses were called: , namely,
Bishop Robert Howie and Inspector Brenda Lucki. The Member did not testify, nor were
witnesses called on his behalf.

Bishop Robert Howie

[16] Bishop Howie’s testimony confirmed the contents facts and the chronology of the ASF of
events as they appear in the ASF as they pertain to him. He informed the Board that the position
of Bishop is a relatively high one within the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-
dDay Saints. He was called to this position three and one half years ago, and continues to serve in
that capacity. He receives no financial compensation for the exercise of his duties, which include
ministering to a congregation of approximately 732 people, and at the time of this incident was
self-employed as a real estate developer in Regina. He divides the time that he devotes to the
Church between administrative duties, the preparation for and delivery of all of the Sunday
meetings, and the provision of spiritual counseling services to his congregation.

[17] Bishop Howie testified that he became the Bishop of this, the Wascana Ward, a few years
ago, and got to know Constable Gregson in that capacity. Bishop Howie said that he had spoken to
Constable Gregson on a few occasions about the latter’s employment situation, his job
opportunities and his separation from wife and children owing to a marriage breakdown.

[18] At issue for Constable Gregson and central to these events was something called a
“‘Temple Recommend”’. This was described by Bishop Howie as the level of approval from the
Church administration (that is to say, from Bishop Howie himself) permitting entry to the inner
sanctuary of the Church, where people can go to get closer to God. At issue, according to this
witness, was the fact that Constable Gregson was involved in a sexual relationship outside of his
marriage and that as long as this was the case, the Temple Recommend would be denied because,
as Bishop Howie explained to Constable Gregson, in the eyes of the Church this was a sin.

[19] Bishop Howie described how, on May 14, 2006, Constable Gregson attended the Church
unannounced, requesting a meeting with him. Bishop Howie granted this request and the two of
them went to Bishop Howie’s office, where they were alone. Constable Gregson immediately
raised the subject of the Temple Recommend, clearly the purpose of the meeting that he had
requested.
[20] Bishop Howie testified that he explained to Constable Gregson how, given his personal
circumstances, he would have to repent in order to be considered for the Temple Recommend. At
this point, Constable Gregson pulled out the knife, opened it and placed it on the desk with the
point of it directed toward Bishop Howie. Constable Gregson then uttered the threats that are
contained in the ASF. In addition to the facts that are set out in the ASF, Bishop Howie testified
that Constable Gregson described to him some of the things that he had seen (although these were
not explained further), his police training and the special training that he had received, all having to
do with the number of ways there are to kill. In cross-examination, Bishop Howie testified that
Constable Gregson told him that he had received Special Forces Combat training, reserved for an
exclusive few, on how to kill people.

[21] Bishop Howie testified that he had done nothing to provoke this reaction by Constable
Gregson and that it took him completely by surprise. He testified to feeling trapped because
Constable Gregson was between him and the door and there was no other escape. He made
reference to the “fight or flight” response, stating that he knew he couldn’t fight Constable
Gregson but could not flee either. Bishop Howie testified that he knew at that point that his life
was in danger because the ultimatum that he was being given was, in the words of the witness,
“either give me my Temple Recommend back or I’ll kill you”. Bishop Howie told the Board that
it became obvious that the only option he had at this point was to somehow calm Constable
Gregson down and get him to leave. In his words, “I either talk him down or die”. Bishop Howie
told the Board that he feared for his life and that he had never experienced anything like that
before.

[22] Bishop Howie then testified that in order to “talk him down”, he entered into a discussion
with Constable Gregson about the moral and spiritual reasons behind the rules protecting the inner
sanctuary of the Church, and why repentance and remorse were necessary before reinstatement of
the Temple Recommend could be considered. This witness testified that at the conclusion of this
discussion, Constable Gregson was calm and Bishop Howie no longer feared for his own safety.
Bishop Howie testified that Constable Gregson told him that he was “messed up” because he was
fearful of losing his job with the RCMP and was under a great deal of stress at the time. The
meeting concluded with Constable Gregson thanking Bishop Howie for not reinstating the Temple
Recommend, at which time Constable Gregson left the office.

[23] Immediately following the incident, Bishop Howie testified that he called his supervisor
and then the Church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, who put him in touch with a lawyer
for the Church. He went on to explain how his next step was to arrange for his personal security
and the security of his family. Although Bishop Howie conceded in his testimony that Constable
Gregson had made no direct threats against his family, Bishop Howie added that he “didn’t know
what [Constable Gregson] might be capable of.”. Bishop Howie testified that he approached a
number of men in the congregation and asked them to provide personal protection for himself and
his wife and children, which they did, for a period of approximately two weeks. Bishop Howie
testified that he did not return to work for a couple of weeks, during which time he talked this
incident through with his family, members of his congregation and Church administration, and
ultimately the police.

[24] In cross-examination, Bishop Howie acknowledged that he did not call the Regina Police
Service for at least a couple of weeks, stating that he preferred to bring his safety concerns to the
attention of the Church administration.
[25] Bishop Howie also testified, under cross-examination, that Constable Gregson continued to
attend Sunday Church services for three or four weeks after the incident on May 14, 2006, and that
nothing further ensued; in fact, Constable Gregson remained alone throughout the service on each
of those three or four occasions, and did not approach him.

Inspector Brenda Lucki

[26] Inspector Lucki is the South District Operations Officer in “F” Division. From February
2006 onward, she had occasion to deal with Constable Gregson under the auspices of the Gradual
Return to Work Program. Inspector Lucki described her duties in relation to Constable Gregson as
being oriented towards his ultimate re-integration into the RCMP workforce and, as . As thedirect
report for Constable Gregson reported to her, Inspector Lucki said that gave him tasks and
assigned him duties and certain hours of work.

[27] An objection was raised by the Member Representative to the effect that Inspector Lucki
was poised to testify about performance issues and other factors outside of those which are alleged
in the Notice of Hearing. The heart of the objection raised is that such testimony may amount to
an attempt, on the part of the Appropriate Officer, to “piggyback” a Part V Discharge hearing on
the back of this Code of Conduct hearing under Part IV, and that no notice had been provided to
the Member on performance issues.

[28] The Appropriate Officer Representative and the Member Representative both referred in
their submissions to two cases: that of Kinsey and Dhaliwal v. Attorney General (Canada) and
tThe Appropriate Officer “E” Division (2007), FC 543) , [ERC 2400-04-003/2400-04-004, D-
95/96, (2004), 22 A.D. (3d) 88/104 (Bd.); (2005), 28 A.D. (3d) 205/225 (ERCCommittee); (2006),
30 A.D. (3d) 1 (Cmr.ommissioner)], (hereinafter Kinsey) and that of The Appropriate Officer “D”
Division and Sergeant C.P. Avanthay (2007), 1 AD (4thth) 262 (hereinafter (Avanthay).

[29] The Appropriate Officer Representative agreed with the Member Representative that
following the precedents set in Kinsey and in Avanthay, it is appropriate for a Line Officer to
testify about things that someone under their supervision did or said, and the resulting impact on
the degree of confidence that the Line Officer had in that Member.

[30] The Board, in ruling on this objection, confirmed that a Member’s performance is a
relevant factor in a sanction hearing, but cautioned against allowing the witness to stray from the
testimony that was contained within the “can-say” which formed part of the disclosure package.
The Board held that the opportunity to cross examine the Line Officer on her testimony would
allow the Member Representative to make the appropriate submissions to the Board on the weight
that should attach to any or all of her testimony.

[31] In cross-examination, Inspector Lucki testified that in February of 2006, she held an
interview with Constable Gregson to determine his placement in a certain situation to facilitate his
return to work. She testified that this was the first meeting between them. She testified that in this
meeting Constable Gregson demanded that she change that particular placement because, in his
words, “the people he was being asked to work with were beneath him”.

[32] Also in cross-examination, Inspector Lucki confirmed that Constable Gregson was
suspended from duty on September 27, 2006.

Other Documentary Evidence

[33] The Appropriate Officer Representative entered a record of previous informal discipline
dated October 1, 2004 (exhibit AO -3).

[34] The Member Representative entered one exhibit, (M - 1), consisting of a binder containing
a document pertaining to Constable Gregson’s return to work, some medical documentation
pertaining to his diagnosed medical condition, letters of appreciation and a Commanding Officer’s
commendation, performance evaluations from the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and case law
in support of the sanction sought by the Member Representative, namely, a reprimand plus the
forfeiture of two to four days’ pay.

SUBMISSIONS ON SANCTION

The Member Representative

[35] The Member Representative submitted that dismissal was not a proper sanction as the
incident in question was a unique event in this Member’s history, and as serious as it is, does not
show a character flaw. There is only one previous unrelated informal sanction and no evidence to
suggest that Constable Gregson is irredeemable or beyond rehabilitation.

[36] The Member Representative conceded that the conduct was inappropriate and that the
threats which were uttered created fear in Bishop Howie, but asked the Board to consider what was
really going on that day. The Member Representative submitted that Constable Gregson was
frustrated, he wanted to get closer to God in order to deal with the problems that he was facing in
life, as there were some significant stressors in his life at that time, and that he needed his Temple
Recommend back in order to do that.

[37] The Member Representative drew the Board’s attention to two significant sources of stress
for Constable Gregson at that time, namely, the pressures he was facing at work and the emergency
surgery he underwent in April 2006, just a few weeks before this incident. Inspector Lucki’s
testimony indicated some of the difficulties Constable Gregson was having under the Gradual
Return to Work Program, and the medical reports indicate that after the emergency surgery in
April 2006 the symptoms continued, throughout May and into July 2006.

[38] The Member Representative pointed out the mitigating factors that arose out of the
testimony of Bishop Howie, including Constable Gregson’s having thanked him for ultimately not
providing the Temple Recommend. The Member Representative drew the Board’s attention to an
important source of the victim’s stress following this incident, namely, that he was not kept “‘in
the loop”’: this cannot be attributed to Constable Gregson, according to the Member
Representative, but it nonetheless seems to be a source of considerable stress to Bishop Howie.
The Member Representative pointed out how Constable Gregson continued to attend Sunday
services for three to four weeks after the incident, and was not disruptive.

[39] The Member Representative conceded that Constable Gregson’s performance evaluations
indicated problems, but drew attention to other aspects of his work record that were worthy of
consideration, especially the Letter of Appreciation from the Commanding Officer in 2004, which
showed that Constable Gregson has the ability to work as part of a team. The Member
Representative submitted that the performance evaluations showed Constable Gregson’s obvious
strengths in important areas such as client-centred service.

[40] The Member Representative submitted that in accepting responsibility for his actions,
Constable Gregson had taken the first step in what should be a program of positive and progressive
discipline. He submitted that Constable Gregson’s plea of guilty in the criminal proceedings and
his admission of the Code of Conduct offence before the Board indicate that Constable Gregson
has accepted responsibility for his actions and should be given the chance to return to work.

[41] The Member Representative submitted that the clean bill of health given in October 2006
by Dr. Eckom suggests that Constable Gregson has overcome the physical effects of his medical
condition. However, submitted the Member Representative, no attempt has yet been made to
reassess Constable Gregson in order to find out how he might fit back in to the organization. In
May 2007, the Return to Work Coordinator stated that another proper assessment was required.
The Member Representative submitted that it was incumbent upon the organization, through the
Health Services Officer, to have considered a Return to Work program for Constable Gregson that
went beyond administrative duties, and that this is a program that has yet to be undertaken. At the
very least, submitted the Member Representative, there needs to be an assessment of Constable
Gregson’s global situation, in order to accommodate any outstanding issues.

[42] The Member Representative submitted four cases to support his argument for a sanction
consisting of a reprimand plus the forfeiture of two to four days’ pay. The Member
Representative’s submissions on the case law were made in reply to submissions made by the
Appropriate Officer Representative. The four cases submitted by the Member Representative were
the following:

￢ The Appropriate Officer “C” Division and Constable M. Rheault (2003),

17 AD (3d) 175 (hereinafter Rheault, also cited below).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “” Division and Special Constable “A” (1991), 6
AD (2d) 212 (hereinafter S/Cst “A” (1991)).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “” Division and Special Constable “A” (1992), 8
AD (2d) 26 (hereinafter S/Cst. “A” (1992)).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “” Division and Constable “A” (1997), 32 AD
(2d) 15 (hereinafter Cst. “A”).

The Appropriate Officer Representative

[43] Sixteen cases were submitted by the Appropriate Officer Representative:

￢ The Appropriate Officer “F” Division and Constable Morton (2002), 14

AD (3d) 34 (Bd.); (2003), 18 AD (3d) 77 (ERC); (2003), 19 AD (3d) 40
(Cmr.) (hereinafter Morton).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “C” Division and Constable Aubertin (2000), 7
AD (3d) 80 (Bd.); (2001), 11 AD (3d) 56 (ERC); (2001), 12 AD (3d)
 22 (Cmr.) (hereinafter Aubertin).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “A” Division and Constable Bertrand (2000), 8
AD (3d) 210 (Bd.); (2001), 11 AD (3d) 125 (ERC); (2001), 11 AD (3d)
211 (Cmr.) (hereinafter Bertrand).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “C” Division and Constable Langlois (2004), 21
AD (3d) 214 (hereinafter Langlois).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “O” Division and Constable Crowe (2006), 29 AD
(3d) 208 (hereinafter Crowe).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “H” Division and Constable Zahara (2007), 1 AD
(4th) 306 (hereinafter Zahara).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “C” Division and Constable M. Rheault (2003), 17
AD (3d) 175 (hereinafter Rheault).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “E” Division and Constable Netherway (1998), 2
AD (3d) 105 (hereinafter Netherway).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “E” Division and Constable Tessier (1999), 6 AD
(3d) 119 (hereinafter Tessier).
￢ The Appropriate Officer “K” Division and Constable Walker (2002), 17
AD (3d) 19 (hereinafter Walker).

[44] The Appropriate Officer Representative took issue with the characterization of Constable
Gregson’s actions in Bishop Howie’s office as a “cry for help”, stating that pulling a knife to get
what you want is not a cry for help. The Appropriate Officer Representative suggested that
Constable Gregson was not offering a medical excuse for what happened because he cannot, since
there is no evidence of a causal link between Constable Gregson’s medical condition and what
happened in May of 2006.

[45] In seeking the dismissal of Constable Gregson, the Appropriate Officer Representative
drew parallels to those dismissal cases in which the misconduct was so serious that it impaired the
essential trust and confidence that the employer is entitled to place in the employee, and stated that
this is what characterized the present case. The Appropriate Officer Representative also drew the
attention of the Board to dismissal cases in which the Member took extreme measures over
relatively minor issues, stating that this is also what happened in the present case.

[46] Referring to Constable Gregson’s performance assessments, the Appropriate Officer

Representative suggested that little weight should be given them because they are dated; the latest
is in August 2005. No one questions that Constable Gregson has done good work on occasion, but
that is not the issue here, according to the Appropriate Officer Representative; the central issue
before the Board is the May 2006 incident.

[47] The Appropriate Officer Representative paid particular attention to Constable Gregson’s
prior informal discipline, suggesting that Constable Gregson’s behaviour in that incident, showing
as it did poor judgement and an inability to rationalize or view the consequences of his actions,
was in fact closely related to the present case and raised some serious concerns about Constable
Gregson’s character. Drawing parallels between the informal discipline case and the events that
are at the heart of this Notice of Disciplinary Hearing, the Appropriate Officer Representative
suggested that Constable Gregson’s actions in both instances were spontaneous, with little or no
pre-meditation. They were impulsive, irrational and excessive. All of this, submitted the
Appropriate Officer Representative, is an indicator that Constable Gregson, who is not a junior
Member with almost 8 years of service in May 2006, does not possess the proper core values of the
Force. The Appropriate Officer Representative maintained that both of these incidents show
Constable Gregson to be a spoiled, arrogant child who is only concerned with his own goals; he
cannot handle being told “no” and when this happens he loses his temper. This, according to the
Appropriate Officer Representative, is what has seriously eroded the trust that is so necessary in
the employer/employee relationship. Through his own actions, contended the Appropriate Officer
Representative, Constable Gregson has repudiated the contract of employment.

[48] On the subject of rehabilitative potential, the Appropriate Officer Representative invited
the Board to question what evidence, if any at all, was led to indicate that an incident of this nature
will not recur. The Appropriate Officer Representative submitted that since Constable Gregson
has demonstrated, by his actions in May 2006, a willingness to resort to violence to get his own
way, public safety concerns are raised, which must be taken into account by the Board in
considering whether or not Constable Gregson should remain a Member of the Force.

Reply by the Member Representative to the Appropriate Officer Representative’s

representations on sanction

[49] The Member Representative summarized the details of the cases submitted by both counsel
in such a manner as to indicate that dismissal only seems to be warranted in cases where:

￢ a Member lies about the incident or otherwise does not accept responsibility for it;
￢ when the behaviour at issue is indicative of a continuing pattern of problematic
behaviour;
￢ when a Member ignores repeated warnings about such behaviour,;,
￢ the behaviour is so atrocious that one cannot conceive of the Member continuing
with the Force.

[50] The Member Representative submitted that none of these four considerations applied to the
facts and the evidence before the Board in the present case. The Member Representative submitted
that this incident, which is unrelated to prior informal discipline, should be seen as an isolated
event that is not indicative of a problematic pattern of behaviour. The principle of parity of
sanction should cause the Board to lean more toward the lighter end of the scale and follow the
examples set by the Boards in the four cases that were submitted by the Member Representative.
The Member Representative submitted that a reprimand plus the forfeiture of two to four days’ pay
was appropriate in this case.

[51] The Member Representative submitted that in cases of dismissal, of prime importance to
the Board must be whether or not there is a chance of rehabilitating the Member. The Member
Representative made reference to his earlier submissions to the effect that Constable Gregson was
not beyond rehabilitation and that further work needs to be done to bring Constable Gregson back
into the mainstream of the RCMP.

[52] The Member Representative submitted that although there were mitigating factors
associated with Constable Gregson’s medical condition, the Member was not inviting the Board to
conclude that he was not responsible as a result of this medical condition. This, according to the
Member Representative, demonstrates Constable Gregson’s integrity.
DECISION ON SANCTION

[53] Having determined that Constable Gregson contravened the Code of Conduct, the Board
was then required to consider a sanction. In its consideration of an appropriate sanction, the Board
took into account that the primary purpose of a disciplinary sanction under the RCMP Act is not
necessarily punitive. However, the RCMP has a duty to prevent or deter conduct that it finds
unacceptable.

[54] The Board adopted the analytical framework recommended by the External Review
Committee. The Board found that the appropriate range of sanction, given the nature of the
misconduct, would be from a reprimand plus a forfeiture of pay at the upper end of the scale to
dismissal.

[55] The Board then carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this
case. Although not specifically enumerated, the Member Representative identified some
mitigating factors in his submissions. Additionally the Board, in its analysis of the evidence, found
factors that tended to mitigate the serious nature of the conduct in question.

Mitigating Factors

[56] Constable Gregson was experiencing stress from three different sources in May 2006,
namely, the attendant stress of a significant medical condition, turmoil in his personal life, and the
stress that would normally be associated with being fearful of losing one’s job. The ASF makes
reference to Constable Gregson being “under a great deal of stress” at the time of the incident. In
the absence of any evidence being called to illuminate what the various sources of stress might be,
the Board examined the evidence placed before it and made several findings on the basis of its
analysis of that evidence.

[57] The Medical Documentation section of exhibit M-1 contains a summary prepared by the
Regina General Hospital upon Constable Gregson’s discharge on April 15, 2006, that describes the
medical condition as “Hydrocephalus secondary to multiple cysts in the basal cisterns in the brain
stem.” The Board acknowledges that anyone having to undergo emergency brain surgery would
find this stressful.

[58] The second source of stress, namely, the turmoil in Constable Gregson’s personal life, is
again something to which only oblique reference was made in the hearing. Upon examination of
the totality of the evidence that was placed before it, the Board found that in May 2006 Constable
Gregson was separated from his wife and children owing to a marriage breakdown. Page 7 of AO-
2, at line 22, makes reference to (sic) “martial problems during the preceding time”. The Board
takes notice of the fact that such a situation usually causes considerable stress in an individual’s
life. Also, it was clear from Bishop Howie’s testimony that Constable Gregson’s relationship
outside of his marriage created a spiritual impasse, the resolution of which was the catalyst for
Constable Gregson’s attendance at the Church on May 14, 2006. The Board found that these
personal circumstances created stress for Constable Gregson.

[59] The third source of stress was again not something that was brought into sharp relief in the
course of the hearing, rather, something to which only oblique reference was made. The ASF
states that Constable Gregson “was fearful of losing his job with the RCMP”. Inspector Lucki
testified as to the challenges that were being faced in the course of the Gradual Return to Work
Pprogram. The Board, having analyzed the totality of the evidence before it, found that this was
also a source of stress.

[60] As a result, the Board found that the combined effect of these three sources of stress were
contributing factors to Constable Gregson’s behaviour on May 14, 2006.

[61] The Board found as a mitigating factor that the incident of May 14, 2006, was an isolated
incident of violence in his career, and that it was of relatively short duration.

[62] The Board also found as a mitigating factor Constable Gregson’s admission to Bishop
Howie that he was “messed up” as a result of the stress that he was under at the time. The Board
also found it noteworthy that Constable Gregson recognized that he was ultimately not given the
Temple Recommend for spiritual reasons, and that he thanked Bishop Howie for his decision.
[63] Another mitigating factor is that Constable Gregson pled guilty to the criminal charge at
the earliest available opportunity, and that he admitted the Code of Conduct contravention in these
proceedings.

[64] The Board turned its mind to two other factors to consider whether or not they served to
mitigate the seriousness of the contravention, namely, Constable Gregons’s performance history
and his medical condition.

[65] Performance is relevant to sanction, especially where dismissal is sought. Consistently

good performance in an otherwise unblemished career can act as a mitigating factor. The Board
carefully reviewed the series of evaluations of Constable Gregson’s performance and found both
positive and negative aspects, leading the Board to an overall assessment of Constable Gregson as
a Member who has performed at a level that is average to below average. On January 27, 2003, he
is described by one supervisor as an “excellent performer”; that same supervisor refers to his
“tremendous potential” in commentary dated August 25, 2003. Unfortunately, reports on
Constable Gregson’s performance quickly go downhill from that point on. The Force expects at
least average performance from its Members. The overall performance of Constable Gregson, as
indicated by the assessments submitted in evidence, would allow for a rating that can only be
characterized as average to below average. The Board therefore gives little to moderate weight to
the performance of Constable Gregson as a mitigating factor.

[66] The Board did not find the medical condition itself to be a mitigating factor because there
was no evidence that linked the symptoms described in the medical reports to Constable Gregson’s
behaviour on May 14, 2006. The Board’s reasoning is as follows:

￢ In evidence was a transcript from the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in which

the sentencing Judge accepted a joint proposal from the Crown and the Defence
which consisted of the withdrawal of three charges by the Crown in return for a
guilty plea on one charge. Jointly proposed was a conditional discharge. At page
8, line 16, Henning PCJ states “I would have considerable reservations about doing
that if it were not for the diagnosed medical condition which the Crown accepts.
But under those circumstances, I am prepared to accept the joint submission.” No
medical evidence was placed before Henning PCJ, he was merely acceding to the
 Crown’s acceptance of a plea bargain.

￢ The Board, unlike the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, had the benefit of medical
reports, contained in exhibit M - 1, which indicated that Constable Gregson’s
medical condition was characterized by confusion, headaches, nausea, vomiting,
memory loss, disorientation, blurred vision, a burning sensation in the head and
scalp area, fatigue, burning eyes, weight loss and loss of consciousness. The Board
found that the events as described both by the ASF and by Bishop Howie indicated
lucid behaviour. Constable Gregson had a specific subject of discussion in mind
when he went to see Bishop Howie and he came quickly to the point when the
discussion began. Towards the end of the encounter, Bishop Howie engaged
Constable Gregson in an abstract discussion of morality and spirituality in finding a
logical basis for the refusal of the Temple Recommend. Constable Gregson not
only followed Bishop Howie’s line of reasoning but indicated that he understood
and accepted it. The Board found that Constable Gregson’s behaviour during his
encounter with Bishop Howie was not indicative of the symptoms described in
exhibit M-1.

Aggravating Factors

[67] The Board found aspects of Constable Gregson’s conduct that aggravated an already very
serious situation.

[68] One such aspect was that Constable Gregson confronted Bishop Howie in private, where
there would be no witnesses and no one to come to the aid of his victim.

[68] In addition, Constable Gregson took advantage of a spiritual trust that exists between Bishop
Howie extended counseling services to the Church community on the basis of a spiritual trust
between himself and every member of his congregation through the counseling services to the
Church community the Bishop provides. Constable Gregson took advantage of that trust.

[69] The Board considered the nature of the threats that were uttered by Constable Gregson to
be aggravating in that they drew upon his status as a police officer. Bishop Howie could not have
known whether or not Constable Gregson had, in fact, received Special Forces training in the art of
killing people. Whether or not Constable Gregson actually received this kind of training was of no
consequence; what really mattered to the Board was that these representations achieved the
purpose for which they were delivered, namely, to heighten the victim’s sense of fear. The
circumstances as set out in the ASF, combined with the testimony of Bishop Howie, provided the
Board with clear and convincing evidence not just about what happened and the chronology of
events, but also about the impact of those events on the victim.

[70] It is an aggravating factor that criminal charges were laid as a result of Constable
Gregson’s actions. It is a matter of record that one criminal conviction resulted.

[71] It is also an aggravating factor that another police force, namely, the Regina Police Service,
was involved in the arrest and the prosecution of Constable Gregson..

[712] Aggravating as well is the negative effect that these threats had upon Bishop Howie’s
family and the other members of the Church community. The Board found Bishop Howie to be a
credible witness. By staying away from his office following the incident and by immediately
arranging for personal protection for himself and for his family, Bishop Howie demonstrated, in
convincing fashion, the fear that he said that he felt as a result of the death threats made against to
him by Constable Gregson.

[732] The Board attached no weight to the opinions of Inspector Lucki that pertained to her
degree of confidence in Constable Gregson. The Board’s reasoning was twofold. First,
documentation that normally accompanies strong opinions such as those that were advanced by
Inspector Lucki (such as Forms 1004, Letters of Expectation, Notices of Shortcomings) were
conspicuous by their absence. Second, her opinions were based on a period of observation that
was effectively only some six or seven months in duration (February 2006 until September 2006,
at which time Constable Gregson was suspended from duty).

Rehabilitative potential

[734] The Board adopted the philosophy of Professor Ferguson in his paper “Sanctioning Police
Misconduct - General Principles”, an ERC Discussion Paper Number 8 at pages 52 to 54, when he
stated that “[t]he key issue in regard to disciplinary dismissal is whether the employee or police
officer’s conduct demonstrates that he or she is beyond rehabilitation and no longer fit to perform
his or her functions . . . [t]he issue of whether the police officer’s misconduct demonstrates that he
or she is no longer fit to perform the duties of a police officer is the key issue for both on-duty and
off-duty misconduct.”

[754] Constable Gregson may well feel remorse for this incident, but there was no evidence
before the Board of any expression of remorse to any person at any time. This fact did not give the
Board any comfort when considering this Member’s rehabilitative potential. The Board feels that
an expression of personal regret speaks to rehabilitative potential because it is an indication of a
degree of recognition within one’s self that one has caused injury to another. Without remorse
there is no indication that the wrongdoer has truly recognized that their actions have resulted in
injury to another, and therefore, the Board reasons, no indication that the wrongdoer wishes to
avoid a similar course of action in the future.

[756] A letter of apology to Bishop Howie is one of the many conditions that attach to Constable
Gregson’s probation on the criminal conviction. The Board would have appreciated some
indication that this particular condition has been satisfied because there was no evidence before the
Board that Constable Gregson has ever apologized in any way to any of the parties harmed by his
conduct. The Board feels that apologies are important because, like expressions of remorse, they
acknowledge the harm that was done and thus provide a measure of comfort that the misconduct
will not be repeated.

[776] The Board turned its mind to the safety risk that would be created by allowing Constable
Gregson to remain with the Force after such an incident. The Board sees no reason to believe that
Constable Gregson will ever again engage in exactly the same form of misconduct that was in
issue here, but of greater importance is the issue of whether or not there may be aspects of
Constable Gregson’s character that will ever resurface and become problematic to either the Force
or to the public. In the absence of testimony on the Member’s behalf on this important issue, the
Board searched the evidence placed before it for commentary pertaining to Constable Gregson’s
character.

[778] The Appropriate Officer Representative submitted that the record of previous informal
discipline, documented in exhibit AO - 3, was relevant to sanction in the present case only in the
sense that it demonstrated Constable Gregson’s tendency to do or say whatever he felt like doing
or saying without regard to the consequences of those words or deeds. This character trait,
according to the Appropriate Officer Representative, gave rise to the events of May 14, 2006.

[798] The Board found evidence of similar instances of this character trait, as follows:

￢ In February 2006, when Inspector Lucki offered the terms of a return to

work proposal, Constable Gregson demanded that they be changed because
he felt that the people with whom he was being asked to work were
“beneath him”. The Board found this to be an example of Constable
Gregson’s tendency to react inappropriately to directives provided by a
person in authority.

￢ In April 2006, after having collapsed and being rushed to hospital where
emergency brain surgery was performed, Constable Gregson “left the
hospital against medical advice”, as documented in exhibit M - 1. The
circumstances of Constable Gregson’s departure, against doctor’s orders,
were apparently such that hospital staff called the police. No further details
were provided, but the Board found that this report was an indication of
Constable Gregson’s tendency to ignore or act in a manner contrary to
advice given to him, in this case by medical professionals.

[7981] One of the Force’s core values is professionalism. Part of being a professional is
the ability not only to receive advice or constructive criticism but to learn from it and grow from it.
To retain this employee, the Board must be satisfied that there is a minimal likelihood of the
recurrence of a serious disciplinary matter. Given Constable Gregson’s tendency to do or say
whatever he wants with no regard to the consequences, the Board feels that the recurrence of a
serious incident would only be a matter of time.

[802] At some stage, especially when dismissal is sought, the Member must at least consider
making an attempt to address the underlying issues leading to the misconduct. No evidence was
advanced by the Member that he has taken any steps to address or even to acknowledge the factors
that were found to have played a role in the events of May 14, 2006. Constable Gregson was, by
his own admission, under considerable stress at the time, yet there is nothing to indicate that he has
engaged in any form of counseling or other therapeutic activity to address this. To be even
partially confident that stress will not once again manifest itself in a socially destructive manner,
the Board would like to have heard about any attempt on Constable Gregson’s part to find a way of
dealing with stress.

Breach of the employment contract

[831] The issue of whether an employer is justified in dismissing an employee for serious
misconduct was considered in Ennis v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 1986, 13 CCEL 25,
where it is stated that:
 The exact standard of misbehaviour to be shown varies with the nature of the business engaged in
by the employer, and with the position of responsibility and trust held by the employee. Real
misconduct or incompetence must be demonstrated. The employee's conduct, and the character it
reveals, must be such as to undermine, or seriously impair, the essential trust and confidence the
employer is entitled to place in an employee in the circumstances of their particular relationship.
The employee's behaviour must show that he is repudiating the contract of employment, or one of
its essential conditions.

[824] A police officer occupies a position of trust and enjoys special status in Canadian society.
This is manifested in the elevated levels of power and authority which are statutorily conferred. A
breach of that contract of trust diminishes society’s confidence and impairs the ability of the police
to effectively function within society.

[835] The Board finds that Constable Gregson breached the trust of the RCMP and the public,
and as a result repudiated his contract of employment. This is especially apparent in Constable
Gregson’s having spelled out the special training that he said that he had received (some of which
he claimed was received by virtue of being a police officer) in the art of killing people. The
mitigating factors do not outweigh the seriousness of Constable Gregson’s misconduct, nor do they
serve to reduce the sanction that this misconduct calls for, namely, the termination of employment.

The principle of Parity of Sanction and the Board’s analysis of the cases submitted

[846] Rheault, S/Cst. “A” (1991), S/Cst. “A” (1992) and Cst. “A”, submitted by the Member
Representative, are on point with the present case in that threats were uttered which created a level
of fear. Forfeiture of pay resulted in those cases because the Member apologized, indicated
remorse, acknowledged the factors underlying the conduct and, in all but the case of Cst “A”,
received psychological or psychiatric treatment for these factors, all of which gave the Board in
those cases confidence in rehabilitative potential. S/Cst. “A” (1991) included the expert testimony
of an anthropologist who offered some cultural explanations for the Member’s behaviour, which
were accepted in mitigation by the Board. None of the above mitigating factors are present here.

[857] The cases submitted by the Appropriate Officer Representative which are characterized by
an acknowledgment by the Member of the harm that he has caused, accompanied by an apology
and expression of regret, result in a forfeiture of pay rather than dismissal especially where the
Member seeks some form of counseling to address the behaviour underlying the conduct. Walker,
Langlois, Zahara and Rheault (mentioned above) are examples of such. Again, those mitigating
factors are not present in Constable Gregson’s case.

[868] The Board agrees with the Member Representative’s analysis and observation that
dismissal results when a Member lies about the incident or otherwise does not accept responsibility
for it; when the behaviour at issue is indicative of a continuing pattern of problematic behaviour;
when a Member ignores repeated warnings about such behaviour, or the behaviour is so atrocious
that one cannot conceive of the Member continuing with the Force.

[879] The dismissal in Morton is characterized by a lack of remorse and the Board’s findings that
the Member did not accept responsibility for his actions. The Board’s serious misgivings about the
Member’s credibility in Morton detracted from that Member’s rehabilitative potential. For
different reasons, articulated above, this Board has serious misgivings about Constable Gregson’s
rehabilitative potential.

[8890] The facts in Aubertin are so extreme that one cannot conceive of the Member’s being
permitted to continue working in the organization, despite the Member’s apologies and his sincere
expressions of remorse and regret as well as his having sought the services of a psychologist to
address the problems underlying his behaviour. Constable Gregson’s behaviour, although not as
extreme, was also stress-induced, but none of the relevant mitigating factors in Aubertin (remorse,
apology, seeking the services or a professional to address problems that may have been a factor in
the misconduct) are present before this Board.

[8991] In Bertrand as in the present case, the Member’s rehabilitative potential is compromised by
a lack of remorse and by examples of problematic behaviour in the past which the Board feels may
become problematic in the future.

[902] Dismissal resulted in Crowe despite the Member’s having sought professional help to deal
with underlying problems which were a contributing factor in the misconduct, but the Member’s
previous disciplinary record demonstrated that he ignored repeated warnings about such behaviour,
and the Board found that insufficient attention was being paid to address and correct the
underlying causes. Once again, the dismissal in Crowe revolved around the issue of rehabilitative
potential, the very issue before this Board.

[913] Netherway is characterized by the lack of acceptance of responsibility. The Board agrees
that Constable Gregson has accepted responsibility for his actions, but unlike the facts in
Netherway, Constable Gregson has not apologized for his behaviour; he shows no remorse and has
not addressed the problems underlying his behaviour nor sought the appropriate treatment to deal
with them.

[924] The Tessier dismissal is characterized by a prior disciplinary record sanctioning behaviour
identical to behaviour alleged in the Notice of Hearing (pointing a firearm). This is certainly not
the case before this Board, but again what is important in Tessier case is the presence of mitigating
factors that are completely absent from the present case, namely, that the Member “voluntarily
sought and obtained counseling and has been addressing his behavioural issues” and that “[t]he
Member expressed remorse for his actions and, before the Board, apologized for his (sic) them ”
(sic).

[935] Although not bound by previous decisions, this Board recognizes the importance of parity
of sanction. Where the serious nature of the conduct outweighs the mitigating factors and where
the Board has serious misgivings about the rehabilitative potential of a Member, the cases
demonstrate that dismissal is a viable option for the Board to consider.

[946] Bearing all of the foregoing in mind, and having considered all the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, the Board directs Constable Gregson to resign from the Force within
fourteen days; in default, we order him to be dismissed from the Force

[957] Constable Gregson may appeal this decision by filing a statement of appeal with the
Commissioner within the limitation period set out in subsection 45.14(4) of the RCMP Act.

ORAL DECISION RENDERED on the 16th day of July 2008 at Regina, Saskatchewan.
Written decision dated at Ottawa
in the Province of Ontario
this 25th day of September 2008.

Superintendent R. Codère
Chairperson, Adjudication Board
I AGREE:

Dated at Ottawa
in the Province of Ontario
this ____ day of , 2008.

Inspector C.M.M. Sanche

Member, Adjudication Board
I AGREE:

Dated at Ottawa
in the Province of Ontario
this ____ day of , 2008.

Inspector J.R. Knopp

Member, Adjudication Board