Grievance Case Summary - G-322-323

The Grievor maintained that he was the victim of harassment in the form of comments made about him by two members of the RCMP, namely, the chief health services officer and the human resources officer. The chief health services officer had changed the Grievor's medical profile, leading to the imposition of restrictions on the duties he could perform. It was agreed that the chief health services officer would review this matter once the Grievor had undergone another medical exam by a physician of his choice. The Grievor then proceeded to consult a physician, who requested access to the medical file created by the RCMP. The Grievor submitted this request to the chief health services officer. The file he received was missing certain items, however. The Grievor thus complained to the Privacy Commissioner. In response to this complaint, the chief health services officer explained why some documents could not be provided to the Grievor. He also took the opportunity to reproach the Grievor for looking for "administrative flaws". This was the comment that led the Grievor to present a grievance against the chief health services officer. He argued that the comment was intended to undermine his credibility with the investigator looking into his complaint and was thus a form of harassment. The chief health services officer replied that his comment reflected the many grievances and complaints the Grievor made following the change to his medical profile.

The grievance against the human resources officer was further to a written response he submitted to a number of grievances by the Grievor, in which he maintained that the Grievor had refused to agree to the chief health services officer's request to submit to a medical exam. The Grievor claimed that this comment was false. At Level I, the two grievances were deemed inadmissible because the Grievor failed to demonstrate that he had been adversely affected.

The Level I Adjudicator erred by confusing the merits of the grievances with their admissibility. To be entitled to present a grievance, the Grievor was not required to demonstrate that the comments by the chief health services officer and the human resources officer affected him adversely but rather simply to establish that these comments pertained directly to him. That being said, the Grievor was not subject to harassment. While the chief health services officer's comments were inappropriate, they are not serious enough to be considered humiliating or harmful to the Grievor's reputation. As to the comments by the human resources officer, although he may have incorrectly interpreted the facts, there is no indication that he did so intentionally.

The grievances should be dismissed.

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and dismissed the grievances.