# 2014-054 - Mishandling of a File by the Chain of Command
F&R Date: 2014–07–30
The grievor was attending a program at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) when an alleged serious incident occurred which affected her personally. As a result, she requested that she be authorized to live off campus for personal health reasons. The grievor argued that her chain of command (CoC) displayed obstructive administrative practices concerning her request, which forced her to live within a poisoned environment. In her view, the request should have been approved immediately with the information on file.
Initially, the grievor's CoC denied the request, stating that there was insufficient evidence to approve it. There were also conflicting views on the grievor's file from medical staff and a social worker concerning the request. A few months after the submission of her initial request to live off campus, the medical staff revised their position to support the grievor's request. Within days of receiving this new information, the grievor's CoC approved the request.
The Commandant (Cmdt) of RMCC, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), noted the conflicting information on the grievor's file when she first submitted the request. He stated that the CoC used proper due diligence when they requested additional information to substantiate the request. He indicated that once the supporting information was received, he granted the request, which provided partial redress sought by the grievor.
The Committee had to determine whether the grievor's CoC acted reasonably and appropriately in handling her request to live off the campus grounds of the RMCC Kingston.
The Committee noted that the living-out program had been cancelled by the Cmdt of RMCC years before the grievor made her request to live off campus. It had been made clear by the Cmdt of RMCC that the living out program was cancelled in 2011 and that only extenuating circumstances would be considered to justify a live-out request.
The Committee found that, upon the initial request from the grievor, the CoC had received limited information to substantiate her request and rightfully requested further justification. The Committee also found that, once that justification was received, the CoC acted expeditiously in approving her request. Therefore, the Committee found that throughout the administration of the approval process, the CoC acted reasonably and appropriately in the circumstances.
The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that the grievance be denied.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2014–11–28
The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.
- Date modified: