Grievance Case Summary - G-340

A member of the RCMP initiated legal action to have a provision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations that imposed restrictions on the political activities of members declared invalid. After the action was dismissed by the Federal Court, the Attorney General tried to prevent the content of the file from being released to the public and wanted the Court to hear the request in camera. The Grievor, who was a Divisional Staff Relations Representative (DSRR), then wrote to his Commanding Officer to apply for authorization to be represented by a lawyer paid by the RCMP, as he wanted to intervene in proceedings before the Court in his capacity as DSRR. This request was denied but the Grievor still presented his application for leave to intervene before the Court through a lawyer chosen by him. The following week, he again wrote to his Commanding Officer asking that his legal costs be covered by the RCMP, but this request was also denied. This resulted in the first grievance. The Commanding Officer's subsequent refusal to pay the two bills of costs from the Grievor's lawyer resulted in two more grievances. The grievance was denied at Level I on the grounds that his request for legal representation did not meet the criteria set out in the Policy on the Provision of Legal Assistance to Crown Servants (the "Policy").

The three grievances are inadmissible since the Grievor was not adversely affected based on the interpretation of the RCMP Act. A grievance is not the appropriate recourse for allowing a member to obtain the work tools he requires, even in the case of a DSRR. In addition, none of the three grievances was initiated within the time limit set out in the RCMP Act, which is 30 days from the time the Grievor first learned of the Commanding Officer's decision not to provide him with legal services paid for by the RCMP. The second request and the submission of the bills of costs did not result in the creation of a new right to challenge what would be the same decision. In any case, even if the grievances had been admissible, they would have had to be denied since the Policy does not authorize a member to be represented by a lawyer paid by the RCMP if it is only to act as an intervener in legal proceedings. Only a defendant or a witness is able to benefit from this option.

The grievances should be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

[TRANSLATION] The Commissioner agreed with the External Review Committee and denied the grievances.