Grievance Case Summary - G-283

The grievance concerns a decision by the Officer in charge, Administration and Personnel (the "Respondent") to revoke approval of legal representation at public expense for the Grievor and to reject travel claims presented by the Grievor so that he could meet with his attorney. The Grievor was to participate in a peacekeeping mission to Haiti under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). He first travelled to Ottawa to attend briefings. An incident occurred at the airport which resulted in his being charged with wilful obstruction of the airport security personnel. The Grievor had ammunition in his carry-on luggage and became involved in a dispute with airport security personnel as to whether he could take that ammunition onto the aircraft. He eventually surrendered the ammunition but only after airport security personnel boarded the aircraft and asked him to return to the security area. The Respondent cancelled the Grievor's deployment to Haiti, having concluded that his behaviour was inappropriate. Three months later, the Grievor applied for legal representation at public expense to defend himself in court against the charge of wilful obstruction. The Respondent agreed to that request, on the advice of the Department of Justice, declaring himself satisfied that the Grievor had acted within the scope of his duties. He reversed himself three months later, accusing the Grievor of having misled him by failing to indicate that he had knowingly violated UN instructions which provided that members of the peacekeeping mission to Haiti were not to bring ammunition with them. At the same time, he decided that the Grievor's travel claims would not be approved because he had failed to obtain prior authorization for his travel. The Grievor was subsequently acquitted of the charge of wilful obstruction. A disciplinary board also determined that three allegations of disgraceful conduct related to his interaction with airport security personnel had not been established but that the Grievor had violated the RCMP Code of Conduct because air security regulations prohibited airline passengers from carrying explosives onto an aircraft.

The Respondent could not renege on the agreement to pay the Grievor's legal expenses, in the absence of fraudulent misrepresentation on the Grievor's part. The Grievor's failure to bring the UN instructions to the Respondent's attention does not amount to fraudulent misrepresentation. As such, the Grievor did not violate those instructions because he was travelling to Ottawa, not Haiti. Furthermore, it appears that the Respondent had ulterior motives for cancelling legal funding, which cannot be justified, given that he had detailed knowledge of the airport incident three months before the Grievor even applied for legal funding. The Grievor's travel had been pre-authorized when his detachment commander gave him access to an RCMP vehicle. In addition, payment of expenses to meet with counsel could not be denied when the Respondent had already determined that the Grievor's costs to defend himself in court would be assumed by the Force.

The grievance should be allowed.

The Commissioner did not accept the Committee's recommendation, stating that there is nothing abnormal about the RCMP revisiting an earlier decision to pay legal expenses if it receives new information.