Grievance Case Summary - G-493

The Grievor had a life insurance policy with company X for a number of years. Around the time he decided to cancel the policy to reinvest it, he learned of allegations that company X and various insurance brokers were involved in fraudulent activities. In addition, one of the persons identified in the allegations was one of the main subjects in case "C," to which the Grievor was already assigned. The Grievor discussed the situation with his senior officers and was advised not to get involved in the investigation into company X. A district policing officer (DPO) informed the Respondent of his concerns regarding the Grievor's situation. The DPO believed that a number of questions had to be answered before the Grievor could be allowed to continue working on case "C." Some time later, the Grievor was taken off case "C" and two other operations. The Grievor believed that he was removed from the cases because of the DPO's actions and that the DPO was in effect calling his integrity into question. He therefore filed a harassment complaint against the DPO, and the Respondent was assigned to the complaint. Following an investigation, the Respondent found that none of the Grievor's allegations had been established. The Grievor presented a grievance regarding the Respondent's decision. In his grievance, the Grievor alleged in particular that the Respondent had a conflict of interest and that the investigation's mandate was too narrow. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance and found that the Respondent's decision was reasonable despite the fact that there may have been a conflict of interest. He also found that the issue of the narrow investigation mandate could not be reviewed because the time limit had been exceeded, as the mandate had been established long before the onset of the time period for filing the grievance. The Grievor presented a Level II grievance.

The ERC found that the investigation mandate was one of the elements of the complaints process as a whole and that it would have been unreasonable to require that the Grievor present a grievance for each element individually before the end of the process. The ERC also noted that the Grievor should have had access to a copy of the complete investigation report on his complaint. In addition, some of the Respondent's responses to the Grievor's requests for information may have suggested, rightly or wrongly, that some relevant documents were not provided. The ERC also found that the Respondent's involvement in the situation between the Grievor and the DPO had gone beyond simply being aware of the conflict, and that a reasonable person would be concerned about the Respondent's ability to be impartial in its role as the decision-maker in the harassment complaint.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance. However, because of the apprehension of bias regarding the Respondent and in light of some concerns about the investigation, the ERC recommended that the Commissioner not rule on the merits of the case. The ERC did not recommend that a new investigation be conducted because of the considerable amount of time that had elapsed since the events in the complaint occurred. The ERC recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the breaches in the handling of his complaint.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner allowed the grievance.

Like the ERC, the Commissioner found that the time limit for presenting the grievance was respected. Specifically, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the scope of the mandate of the harassment investigation is one of the elements of the complaints process and that it would be unreasonable to require an individual to present a separate grievance for each element within the same process.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor should have had access to a copy of the complete investigation report.

Concerning the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Respondent was much more than simply a passive observer of the DPO's actions and that a reasonable and informed person would justifiably be concerned about the Respondent's bias in his role as the decision maker in the harassment complaint. As a result, the Commissioner found that the Respondent's decision was flawed and was therefore null and void.

The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the way his harassment complaint was handled. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that because of the considerable amount of time that has elapsed since the events in the complaint occurred, it would be very difficult to conduct a new investigation.