# 2013-077 - Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–12–05

The grievor disputed the results of a collision investigation into damage to a Militarized Commercial Of-The-Shelf vehicle of which he was the primary driver during an exercise. The investigation concluded that the damage was caused by inappropriate speed for the terrain, that it was preventable and that the grievor was responsible. The grievor claimed the investigation was flawed and, further, he was not provided with an opportunity to dispute the findings of the Safety Supervisor prior to the conclusion of the collision investigation. As redress he sought the destruction of all records relating to the collision report and the cancellation of the prescribed remedial training.

The Initial Authority conceded that the circumstances of the damage were not clearly established, but found that without the identification of the person actually responsible, the policy required the driver of record be held accountable. He offered partial redress by ordering a note be placed on the grievor's personnel file indicating that although he was held accountable, he was not physically responsible for the damage.

The Committee had to determine whether the collision investigation was conducted in accordance with the applicable policy and supported the conclusions reached in respect to the cause of the collision and the assignment of responsibility. The Committee also had to determine whether the remedial training imposed was justified.

The Committee determined that the standard of proof in this case is balance of probabilities and that given the accountabilities involved, the required level of procedural fairness was lesser. A collision investigation is administrative in nature; it neither assigns blame nor serves as a basis for punitive measures. Its purpose is to identify cause and prevent reoccurrence. The grievor provided a statement to the Safety Supervisor before the investigation was concluded; the Committee found this was sufficient in the circumstances in terms of procedural fairness.

Based on training and experience, the Safety Supervisor concluded that the damage was consistent with not properly adjusting speed to the difficult conditions of the terrain reported in statements obtained during the investigation. The Safety Supervisor arrived at the conclusion that the grievor was a fault based on the fact that the grievor admitted being the primary driver, that the statements corroborated that he operated the vehicle in a manner consistent with the driving behavior suspected to be at fault and given that the damage was found shortly after the grievor had returned the vehicle.

The Committee found that the collision investigation arrived at reasonable conclusions and recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–05–29

The Final Authority (FA) disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA noted there was evidence that the grievor was not the only driver of the vehicle involved in the collision and during the inspection at the end of the exercise no concerns were raised regarding the vehicle's condition. The FA found that it could not be established where or when a collision occurred, let alone who was driving the vehicle. The FA found that the results of the investigation would have an impact on the grievor in that his professional credibility was at stake. Ultimately, the FA disagreed with the Committee's finding that the collision should have been attributed to the grievor; the FA found it should have been attributed to an appropriate unit/formation.