Grievance Case Summary - G-512

The Grievor was diagnosed with medical conditions which prevented him from performing front line operational police work. The Force moved him to a town where he did temporary administrative duties, and became comfortable. A few years later, the Force decided that the Grievor had finished those duties and that it could no longer employ him in the town. It offered him another job that was consistent with his medical profile, but located in a different part of the province. The Grievor reluctantly took the job, and moved. The relocation, isolation, and new surroundings affected him. His conditions quickly worsened. He went Off-Duty Sick (ODS) for a period of time.

Specialists believed, and an independent medical evaluation confirmed, that it would be best for the Grievor to serve in "a static, familiar work environment in combination with a supportive home environment". The Force adopted this stipulation as one of the Grievor's limitations. However, Health Services made it clear that it would not support his ODS status if the Force found him a suitable position. It also clarified that it was not responsible for deciding where members worked. The Force subsequently told the Grievor that the job in the new location met his medical profile. The Force claimed there were no similar jobs in the town.

Health Services later spoke to the Grievor's doctor. After that, it ceased supporting the Grievor's ODS status. The Force then withdrew its authorization of said status. The Grievor grieved Health Services' refusal to support his ODS leave. In his view, the refusal constituted a breach of RCMP sick leave policy which, in turn, "discriminated against [him] due to Medical Disability and Family circumstances in violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". The Grievor also contended that the Force had a duty to accommodate his medical circumstances.

The ERC found that the file was properly referred to it, given that the Grievor's arguments linked a purported breach of Force policy to a contravention of the Charter. However, it chose not to address his accommodation-related arguments, as they formed the subject of a related grievance before the ERC, and would be dealt with during the analysis of that grievance. The ERC then found that nothing in the record demonstrated that the Force violated its sick leave policy. Rather, in accordance with that authority, Health Services consulted the Grievor's doctor, and then exercised its discretion to recommend that the Grievor's ODS leave be discontinued, as it was entitled to do. The ERC further found that it could not respond to the substance of the Grievor's Charter claim, since he offered no clear facts, evidence, or arguments in support of it. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 357, and the ERC observed in previous cases, the presentation of facts is essential to the appropriate consideration of Charter issues. The ERC noted that even if the Force had impinged its sick leave policy, such an infraction would not automatically have led to a Charter violation, in and of itself.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC and denied the grievance.

The Commissioner found the grievance moot as the Grievor had passed away during the Level II process. There would be no practical effect for the Grievor's estate from a decision in this grievance as the Grievor had, through a settlement agreement, received the remedy he sought in the grievance.