Grievance Case Summary - G-501

At the time of submitting his grievance, the Grievor was on medical leave and had initiated a civil suit against the Force. When he was served with a Notice of Intention to Discharge, the Grievor filed a grievance against this Notice.

The Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) informed the Grievor that he might be grieving a non-grievable matter and that, if he wished to continue, a preliminary ruling must be sought. Both parties were given the opportunity to be heard on the matter and availed themselves of this opportunity.

The Level I Adjudicator rendered his decision in which he denied the grievance for lack of standing. He found that there was another process provided for regarding a Notice of Intention to Discharge and thus, the Grievor did not meet the criteria of s.31(1) of the RCMP Act.

The Grievor requested that this decision be reviewed by the Level II Adjudicator.

The Notice of Intention to Discharge cannot be grieved as it is only an interim step in the medical discharge process and an alternate process exists, under s.20 of the RCMP Regulations 1988.

However, the ERC found that the Level I Adjudicator erred when he found that the Grievor lacked standing because he was not prejudiced by the Notice of Intention to Discharge. In the ERC's view, the Notice of Intention to Discharge affected the Grievor personally, thus he was aggrieved in the sense of section 31(1) of the RCMP Act.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance on the basis that the Grievor had an alternate process of redress in the medical discharge process, under s.20 of the RCMP Regulations.

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

In a decision dated October 5, 2011, the Commissioner denied the grievance. He agreed with the ERC that the Grievor did not have standing to present his grievance as there was another process for him to seek redress for the issuance of the Notice of Intention to Discharge, namely the procedure set out in section 20 of the Regulations.

The Commissioner found that the service of the Notice of Intention to Discharge was not a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force but rather a procedural and statutory requirement, re-enforced by the common law, for members affected by decisions coming within the ambit of an administrative discharge board or medical board proceeding. He stated that a fundamental principle of procedural fairness is the right to be heard, which includes one’s right to notice that a decision is being made which could adversely affect him or her; the right to know the case against him or her (including the right to disclosure of any evidence supporting that case); and, the right to a hearing before an impartial decision-maker.

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC’s statement that the Regulations clearly do not anticipate that members will have access to the grievance process at each interim step in the discharge process, but rather only after the decision has been made by the appropriate officer. He stated that the medical discharge process is intended to be expeditious and fair. Should a member at the same time bring a grievance regarding the Notice which initiated the process, this may be seen as a collateral attack on the process, and an abuse of process.

The Commissioner stated that any concerns that the Grievor has about the recommendation for discharge process, the Notice of Intention to Discharge, disclosure of information, etc. (procedural fairness requirements) should be dealt with in the procedure provided by s. 20 of the Regulations.