ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Citation:
In re TALAN10101, RSC-AH2295
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
February 19th, 2024
Ridgeway National Guard
Applicant
and
TALAN10101
Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 1.3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
I. Introduction
[1] Lieutenant mistypro2 applied for an administrative hearing under s. 1.3 of the
Administrative Procedure Act on February 12th, 2024.
[2] The application named TALAN10101, an employee of the Ridgeway National
Guard, as the respondent.
[3] The application has established the department’s desire to dishonourably discharge
TALAN10101 for engaging in conduct that is seen as prejudicial to the government.
[4] On February 13th, 2024, a letter was submitted by the respondent’s counsel in
support of the Administrative Hearing against TALAN10101 being dismissed.
[5] On February 15th, 2024, an Administrative Hearing was held in the court’s digital
communication server, during which all factual allegations made by the department
were verified.
[6] Due to the fact that all factual allegations made by the department were verified in
an administrative hearing, they have been reproduced below.
II. Findings of Fact
[7] On or about February 6th, 2024, TALAN10101 (“accused”) was adjudicated guilty
of Criminal Fraud Class II, a felony against the State of Ridgeway, in a court of law.
[8] The accused, having been found guilty of a felony offence against the state, is in
violation of OPREG 3002(i) by virtue of having a conviction for such an offence
entered against them.
III. Findings of Law and Policy
[9] Ridgeway National Guard Operation Regulation 3002 (i) establishes that
“commiting a felony against the County and State of Ridgeway” classifies as a Type I
offence. Ridgeway National Guard Operation Regulation 3001 (j) establishes Type I
Offences as warranting of an “immediate dishonourable discharge from the National
Guard.”
[10] The respondent, TALAN10101 is subject to the Ridgeway National Guard’s
operation policy.
[11] With the Superior Court’s ruling in State of Ridgeway v. TALAN10101, it is true
that the respondent has been convicted of a felony and is as such in violation of
Ridgeway National Guard Operation Regulation 3002 (i).
[12] In their letter submitted to the court, it is revealed by the attorney for the
respondent that there are active legal efforts to revise the sentence which has been
levied against the respondent. Due to the motion to revise sentence, there is still a
potential for the conviction of the respondent to be overturned.
[13] While it is true that the respondent does hold the potential to obtain further
post-conviction relief, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are
guilty of a felony against the State of Ridgeway. Typically, the burden of proof for a
department wishing to terminate someone from their employment would be much
lower than that of a conviction- and it would be a mistake to raise expectations to such
a high bar.
[14] It is because of the fact that the individual is a convicted criminal in the State of
Ridgeway that they have satisfied an appropriate burden of proof to warrant their
termination from the Ridgeway National Guard.
IV. Recommendations
[15] The applicant recommends termination of the respondent’s employment within
the Ridgeway National Guard in the nature of a dishonourable discharge.
[16] The applicant is entitled to take any action up to and including a dishonourable
discharge.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 19th day of February, 2024.
Administrative Court Judge Jyoungbird
