Grievance Case Summary - G-316

The commander of an RCMP detachment grieved the Force's unwillingness to pay the cost of his private legal representation to defend himself against a civil suit brought by a member of the detachment. The RCMP had been named as a co-defendant, along with the Grievor, and the Department of Justice agreed to represent not only the RCMP but the Grievor as well since the proceedings concerned actions undertaken by the Grievor in his capacity as detachment commander. However, the Grievor contended that the Department of Justice could not adequately defend him as it would be naturally inclined to place the interests of the RCMP over his own interests, which is why he maintained that he should be entitled to retain private legal counsel at public expense. The Grievor also complained that the lawyer appointed by the Department of Justice to represent him had failed to seek instructions from him or kept him abreast of actions taken on his behalf in the proceedings. When the Force received the Grievor's request for private legal counsel, it submitted that request to the Department of Justice for an opinion as to whether it met the requirements of the Treasury Board's Policy on the Indemnification of and Legal Assistance for Crown Servants. The Department of Justice responded that the request could not be granted as it was satisfied that there was no potential for a conflict of interest arising from the same counsel representing both the RCMP and the Grievor.

The Grievor has failed to demonstrate that the Treasury Board policy entitled him to private legal counsel at public expense. Under the terms of that policy, it is only if the Department of Justice had concluded that it could not represent the Grievor due to a conflict of interest that the Grievor's request could have received favourable consideration. Since the Department of Justice did not see a conflict and was prepared to continue representing the Grievor, his request cannot be granted. The Grievor's concern about the quality of representation that he has received from the Department of Justice was not a relevant consideration for the purpose of this grievance, whether or not it was valid. In any event, the Grievor's expectation that he should be entitled to more actively participating in instructing counsel from the Department of Justice is not reasonable. Counsel should only have to receive instruction from the Grievor's employer, the RCMP, since the civil suit concerns actions that the Grievor performed in the course of his employment with the Force.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and denied the grievance.