# 2011-054 Others, Apologies, Grievable Issue Under the National Defence Act

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–09–28

The grievor, a Reservist, contended she was aggrieved by a series of decisions/actions on the part of members of the Canadian Forces (CF) resulting from an initiative she had undertaken as a civilian after approval had been denied by the CF. The grievor maintained the actions fell outside CF's authority and infringed on her freedom to act as a private citizen. She also claimed that serious allegations were made in print against her.

The grievor requested a letter of apology, a letter of regret, an ex-gratia payment to cover legal expenses and suitable compensation for the damage to her reputation and the inability to find continuous employment within the CF.

The initial authority (IA) granted partial redress in the form of an e-mail reminding his directors and their personnel of the need to exercise discretion when forwarding e-mails containing sensitive and/or personal information. Because the grievor had used her rank and name, the IA found that the grievor had represented herself as a member of the CF and her rights as a private citizen had not been infringed; as well, the IA did not agree that the grievor's personal or professional reputation had been damaged and found no evidence that the grievor's livelihood had been negatively impacted.

The Board was not convinced the grievor had the right to grieve in the circumstances. In the Board's opinion, the grievor's endeavour was fundamentally a private undertaking that had in essence, nothing to do with the grievor in her capacity as a member of the Primary Reserve. Notwithstanding, the Board acknowledged the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) may not agree with its determination and addressed the merits of the grievance.

The Board found the actions and/or decisions on the part of CF authorities were reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances and also found there was a lack of evidence to substantiate any claims of malice or bad faith. With the exception of one e-mail that could have been better worded, the Board did not find, in the materials, any evidence that the grievor was the target of an e-mail smear campaign aiming to discredit her, as she alleged. In the matter of financial compensation, the Board pointed out that the CDS, as the final authority in the grievance process, has no authority to determine Crown liability; the proper mechanism, should the grievor wish to pursue it is a claim against the Crown.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–04–17

The CDS agreed in part with the Board's findings and its recommendation to deny the grievance.

The CDS did not agree with the Board's finding that the grievor had no right to grieve. The CDS determined that even if the grievor's action was intended for the purposes of her studies, a non-CF endeavour, she used her military rank and position to do so which gave her access to the CF grievance process.