Grievance Case Summary - G-447

In the course of legal proceedings, counsel for the Grievor's former spouse obtained a subpoena requiring that RCMP provide the court with a copy of the Grievor's disciplinary record. In response to the order, the Respondent forwarded a copy of the Grievor's disciplinary record, along with statements made during the internal investigation, to counsel for the Grievor's former spouse. The Grievor filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The Privacy Commissioner found that the RCMP had violated the Privacy Act in both the manner in which the documents were disclosed and the content of the disclosure.

The Grievor filed a grievance claiming that the sharing of his personal information had violated the Privacy Act and the RCMP Act. The Level I Adjudicator found that the Grievor did not have standing because he had alternate recourse before the Privacy Commissioner. The Grievor requested a Level II review.

The Grievor does have standing, because recourse under the Privacy Act does not constitute another process that prevents the filing of a grievance under section 31(1) of the RCMP Act.

In terms of basis for the grievance, the evidence on file–particularly, the report of the Privacy Commissioner–shows non-compliance with the provisions of the Privacy Act in the Grievor's case. The findings of this report should be accepted, given that the Respondent has not raised any objections concerning its relevance and given the length of time elapsed since the grievance was filed. Accordingly, the Committee found that the RCMP had erred in sharing some of the Grievor's personal information, which was not a part of the disciplinary record, and in sharing the documents with counsel for the Grievor's former spouse rather than the judge in the matter.

The Committee was unable to determine whether the RCMP's actions violated section 40 of the RCMP Act based on the information in the file.

The Committee recommended that the RCMP Commissioner allow the grievance and that he apologizes on behalf of the RCMP for the breach in communicating the disciplinary record. Moreover, the Committee recommended that the Commissioner consider refunding the Grievor the costs incurred to have the disclosed documents withdrawn.

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

[TRANSLATION]

In his decision of March 30, 2012, Commissioner Robert W. Paulson allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner found that the existence of recourse under the Privacy Act did not prevent the Grievor from presenting a grievance. Consequently, the Grievor had standing and the Level-I Adjudicator erred in denying his grievance.

The Commissioner dismissed the Respondent’s argument that the grievance should be deemed inadmissible, because the corrective measures the Grievor sought in his grievance had already been taken. The Commissioner found that some issues had yet to be decided, namely determining whether the Grievor’s rights had been violated by the disclosure of his personal information.

The Commissioner found it was appropriate to designate the Respondent as the person to respond to the grievance, because it was his actions challenged in the grievance, namely, the disclosure of personal information about the Grievor to counsel for his former spouse.

Given that nearly eight years have elapsed since the grievance was presented and that the parties’ arguments addressed the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner found it preferable to make a determination on merit, rather than returning the file to Level I.

Like the ERC, the Commissioner found that the Force did not abide by the provisions of the Privacy Act. However, given the absence of evidence on file concerning the allegation of a violation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Commissioner did not make any findings in that regard.

In keeping with the RCMP’s recommendations, the Commissioner apologized to the Grievor on behalf of the Force for the harm caused to him as a result of the disclosure of his personal information in a manner not compliant with the Privacy Act. The Commissioner also apologized for the delay in processing his grievance file. However, the Commissioner did not award reimbursement proposed by the RCMP for withdrawing the documents from civil court.