B.C. Mountie loses job over sexual misconduct toward female colleagues at Christmas party

An RCMP collar tab pin is seen in Edmonton, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

A B.C. police officer who sexually assaulted one female colleague at a Christmas party and made inappropriate comments to another lost his job earlier this year, according to a decision from the RCMP’s conduct board.

The allegations against Const. Shaun Miranda date back to 2023, and the board’s decision ordering him to resign within 14 days or be fired for professional misconduct was published online this week.

“He is alleged to have forcibly kissed the complainant without her consent and to have made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to another coworker, which, if established, amount to discreditable conduct,” the decision begins.

The party where the board found the misconduct occurred was hosted by two officers at their home and was a “work party” attended solely by members, employees, and their spouses or romantic partners.

“As such, it was intended to be a safe space where they could relax and have fun,” the decision said.

“It was in this safe space that Const. Miranda violated the bodily integrity of an intoxicated woman.”

The complainant, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, was not a sworn officer, but “another category of employee” who had just started working at the detachment and was engaged to a constable who worked with Miranda.

Miranda denied the allegation of sexual assault when he testified in front of the board, saying he and the woman consensually and mutually hugged, and the complainant kissed him on the cheek. That physical contact, according to Miranda, came after a conversation in which the complainant confided in him about her relationship troubles while the pair were in a bathroom.

The board described Miranda’s account as “problematic” for a number of reasons, including finding it “hard to believe,” “illogical,” and “unlikely” the conversation he recounted would have taken place between two acquaintances—one of whom was intoxicated—where and how he said it had.

On the other hand, the board found the complainant was “steadfast” and “unequivocal” when describing the incident in the bathroom and preferred her evidence to Miranda’s.

“The complainant testified that she had gone to use the washroom and, upon opening the door on her way out, Const. Miranda was standing right in front of it, which startled her. She stated that he stepped into her, put his hands on her upper biceps area and pushed her back towards the sink,” the decision said, summarizing the complainant’s description of the sexual assault.

“He kissed her on the lips and stuck his tongue in her mouth. Panicked, she pushed him away, left the washroom and went back to the bar. She stated that the incident lasted only seconds, that the door was wide open and that no words were exchanged between them.”

The standard of proof in a conduct hearing is the same as in a civil case, meaning the board found it more likely than not that Miranda touched the woman for a sexual purpose without her consent. Miranda was never charged with or convicted of sexual assault.

The woman did not tell anyone at the party about the sexual assault, but did tell her fiancé, who is referred to as Const. X in the decision, when they got home.

Roughly three weeks later, Const. X confronted Miranda when the pair were sitting in a cruiser in the detachment’s parking lot. Unbeknownst to Miranda, the conversation was recorded.

The audio was later submitted to the board as evidence.

“When Constable X asked Miranda why he would kiss [the complainant], Miranda responded that ‘she was handing it out’ and that he was trying to make her feel ‘less uncomfortable with the situation,’” the decision said.

This comment, according to the conduct board, further contradicted Miranda’s version of events.

Miranda acted as both “bartender” and “designated driver” the night of the party, according to the board.

It was on the drive home, with six people in his vehicle, where he was alleged to have made the comment to a female officer, referred to as Cpl. A.F. throughout the decision.

The comment was an “allusion to oral sex” and was made after he said he would not drop A.F. off first because of the possibility she would later provide him with oral sex in the car, the decision said.

Miranda admitted to making this comment but told the board it was a joke and one he’d “probably made a hundred times” to Cpl. A.F. specifically.

Even if the “offensive and highly inappropriate” comment had been a one-off, the conduct board found it amounted to misconduct because of the circumstances in which it was made.

“Const. Miranda had forced himself upon an intoxicated female at a Christmas party. He then made the impugned comment in the presence of Const. X and the complainant, referring to Cpl. A.F., who was a co-worker. Furthermore, Cpl. A.F. was also an intoxicated female, who would be travelling alone with Const. Miranda in his vehicle after he dropped off the other passengers,” the decision said.

Ultimately the conduct board found Miranda’s misconduct was serious enough to warrant an order to resign or be dismissed, in part, because of the position of trust and authority he occupied as a police officer.

“In committing a sexual assault and making offensive remarks of a sexual nature, Constable Miranda’s conduct was a serious departure from the standard expected of a member of the RCMP,” the decision said.

“Sexual assault, an offence to which he could be called upon to respond to, is an issue that plagues our society and one that the RCMP is making serious efforts to eliminate from its midst… The public has a vested interest in ensuring that individuals who commit such acts do not remain in positions of authority and in not being at risk from those sworn to protect them.”