RCMP Constable Kristine Roesler of the Kelowna RCMP Detachment pointed her service pistol at a fellow RCMP officer inside the detachment while she was on duty.
Instead of criminal charges for pointing a firearm without lawful excuse (Section 87 of the Criminal Code), Constable Roesler was fined 15 days pay, ordered to complete counselling and transferred to another detachment.
Were a mere citizen to point a loaded firearm at another person after being teased, as she did, they would spend up to five years in prison.
RCMP Membership clearly has its privileges.
Pointing a Firearm
The Criminal Code takes the crime of pointing a firearm at someone very seriously, even if the RCMP does not.
“On or about March 6, 2019 … Constable Kristine ROESLER behaved in a manner that is likely to discredit the Force, contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.”
On or about March 16, 2019, Constables Hess and Roesler were on uniformed general duty at the Kelowna Detachment.
At approximately 3 a.m., Constable Roesler was sitting at her desk, venting her frustration in relation to the failure by her supervisor to review her Reports to Crown Counsel (RTCC), and was making corrections to them.
Constable Hess, who was Constable Roesler’s best friend outside of work, came to her desk and began teasing her, pretending to be her supervisor and making comments in relation to the completion of her paperwork.
Constable Hess continued teasing Constable Roesler, despite her telling him to stop. At which time, she removed her firearm from her holster and told him to “go away” or “fuck off”.
After only a few seconds, Constable Roesler returned her firearm to its holster and Constable Hess made comments about the size of Constable Roesler’s firearm and her shooting prowess.
Rationale for Not Filing Criminal Charges
 Dismissal is the most serious punishment that can be imposed in a disciplinary process such as this one. Before imposing the appropriate conduct measures, I must first consider the appropriate range of measures and take into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.
 In delivering my oral decision on the allegation, I stressed the seriousness of Constable Roesler’s misconduct in that she exposed not only Constable Hess to potentially serious harm, but all the other occupants of the building as well. One small mistake could have had serious and long lasting effects.
 As police officers, we are granted considerable power by the various levels of government here in Canada and, by extension, the Canadian citizens. This includes the ability to infringe on the rights of individuals, to deprive them of their liberty, and to use reasonable force, up to and including lethal force. To enforce the laws that we are sworn to uphold, we are authorized to openly carry firearms. With that ability comes a great responsibility to use them appropriately. The brandishing of one’s firearm due to being teased by a co-worker does not fit this description.
 While I do agree with the Conduct Authority Representative’s argument concerning the need to denounce and deter the careless use of firearms, I do not believe that dismissal is the only way to achieve this objective. While the accused in each of the cases provided were convicted, in this matter, the Crown elected not to proceed with charges.
 Nevertheless, the Conduct Authority has made a strong case for Constable Roesler’s dismissal. While the arbitral decisions he provided can be distinguished from the situation in the present matter, I agree with the Conduct Authority Representative that the RCMP has a responsibility to provide a safe workplace and Constable Roesler’s conduct impinged on that ability.
 In each of the cases submitted by the Conduct Authority Representative, the offending employee had his employment terminated. In particular, I note that the Arbitrator in Viceroy  stated that “to threaten the life of another human being, or to put it at risk just to make a statement, is not acceptable in normal society”.
 Conversely, the Subject Member Representative has argued that dismissal would be a grossly disproportionate sanction for Constable Roesler’s misconduct.
 To assist in determining what the present range for such misconduct should be, I refer to the Conduct Measures Guide. Though Constable Roesler was alleged, and subsequently found to have committed discreditable conduct contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct, I find that the most relevant guidance in relation to the range of measures for such misconduct is found on pages 35 and 36, titled “Unsafe use of Firearm or Police Equipment”.
 Contained in the table which sets out the various ranges, the description of the contravention is as follows:
Manipulating, pointing or discharging a service weapon, conductive energy device or other piece of equipment in an unsafe manner or contrary to training. Includes both accidental discharges and deliberate safety violations, but excludes use of a firearm to commit an indictable offence. [Emphasis in original.]
 Page 36 of the Guide also provides the following guidance when determining which range the misconduct in question falls:
As such, the normal range of conduct measures for such incidents should remain consistent at 2-5 days for contraventions involving carelessness or matters where injury has occurred accidentally.
The aggravated range of sanction should be raised to reflect the severity of voluntarily misusing police equipment, be it out of frustration or as a prank. The aggravated range of conduct measure for such conduct should be from 5-15 days. This is not meant to cover instances where police equipment is used in excess against a suspect (see excessive force) or used to threaten a person in the course of an argument (off-duty criminal conduct).
A mitigated range of sanction could consist of remedial measures to one day in cases without injury, mishandling a weapon without discharge, or any unsafe handling of a weapon without any aggravating features.
 In consideration of the events that occurred in this incident, the cases proffered by the parties and the instruction provided in the Conduct Measures Guide, I find the appropriate range to be the forfeiture of 2 to 15 days’ pay, the normal to aggravated range.
Code of Conduct Conclusion
 After considering the totality of the circumstances, I find the measure being sought by the Conduct Authority to be disproportionate to the gravity of Constable Roesler’s misconduct.
 Although very serious in nature, this type of misconduct, the unsafe and unjustified pointing of a service weapon, was clearly contemplated at the outset of the new conduct process, and the Conduct Measures Guide is quite persuasive in establishing the correct range of measures. While there may be instances, as noted in the Guide, where this range may not be sufficient, I do not find those circumstances to be present in this matter
 After having given consideration to the letters of support, particularly the letter from Inspector D.S., the detachment operations officer, I believe that Constable Roesler has significant rehabilitative potential and I trust that she will not repeat the same mistake in the future and that she will hold herself to the high standard required of an RCMP employee in the performance of her duties.
 However, I do not want anyone to underestimate the seriousness of Constable Roesler’s misconduct. I find it exceedingly aggravating that Constable Roesler would, in reaction to being teased, draw her Force-issued firearm, endangering all the occupants of the bullpen and surrounding area of the detachment. Accordingly, while heeding the intent of the conduct process to be educative and rehabilitative as opposed to punitive, I must also ensure that the measures imposed reflect both specific and general deterrence.
 Bearing in mind the principle of parity of sanction and the ranges suggested by the Conduct Measures Guide, I impose the following conduct measures:
- A financial penalty consisting of the forfeiture of 15 days’ pay, to be deducted from Constable Roesler’s pay.
- A transfer to another work location, to be implemented in accordance with the operational needs of the division.
- To work under close supervision for a period of not more than one year.
- To complete additional counselling in accordance with a treatment plan approved by the Divisional Health Services Officer.
 Constable Roesler is being given an opportunity to continue in her career with the RCMP. However, any future contravention of the Code of Conduct will be seriously reviewed by the appropriate conduct authority and could lead to her dismissal from the Force.