Grievance Case Summary - G-261

The Grievor submitted a grievance against a Notice of Medical Discharge. Following a reevaluation of the Grievor's health, the Health Services Officer prepared a new medical profile that outlined major restrictions with regard to the duties the Grievor could carry out. A Notice of Intention to Discharge was issued and a medical board reviewed the case. In its report, the Medical Board concluded unanimously that the Grievor suffered from [TRANSLATION] "a physical condition that affected neuropsychological functioning" and that this condition was chronic, with little chance of improvement in the near future. The Board also added that the restrictions affected his capacity to work as a police officer because he could no longer make quick decisions, handle firearms, drive an emergency vehicle, drive for operational reasons, or work in isolated or semi-isolated posts. It also added that the Grievor was no longer capable of gathering evidence and testifying in court, of administering and managing operations and resources, or of developing guidelines and policies. One of the Medical Board's members believed nonetheless that the Grievor had some potential and that he could hold a clerical job. The RCMP indicated it could not hire the Grievor to perform clerical duties because no available position fit the restrictions the medical profile imposed. Accordingly, discharge was ordered.

The Grievor submitted his grievance against the decision to discharge without, however, presenting any supporting grounds. Despite numerous extensions, the Grievor failed to produce arguments and the grievance was denied.

The Grievor filed a Level II grievance and requested at that time that the RCMP appoint him a lawyer. The Grievance Unit refused, alleging that the policy relating to the provision of legal assistance did not apply to the grievance process. The Grievor was asked to provide his own representation. No arguments were submitted.

The matter was referred to the Committee. On September 25, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. It immediately informed the Grievor that the Commissioner's standing orders on representation within the RCMP gives members who are the subject of a Notice of Medical Discharge the right to legal assistance. This is a duty that can be taken on by the members' representatives, who are lawyers paid by the RCMP. However, the Grievor never took advantage of his right to mandate a police member representative to act in his name and never presented arguments to support his grievance. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied based on the Grievor's failure to at least present some initial evidence to support his grievance.

On October 17, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the External Review Committee. The Grievor did not provide any grounds to support his grievance and the Commissioner concluded that the grievance should be dismissed and that the Grievor be discharged from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Commissioner maintained that the Grievor was not advised of his right to request a members' representative for the presentation of his grievance and that, in similar situations, the members should be provided with this information. He finally indicated that he would request the Chief Human Resources Officer to address this question.