Grievance Case Summary - G-522

The Grievor learned he was being transferred to a new region. He received a relocation “handout sheet”. It provided that he could not receive permission to take a House Hunting Trip (HHT) until he obtained a firm offer to buy his home. He wished to secure a place in the new region before he sold his house. In view of the handout sheet, he assumed his approach would bar him from receiving a funded HHT. He therefore did not ask permission to take such a trip. He and his family travelled to the new area and rented a property there. He later reviewed RCMP relocation policy, realized that HHT funding may have been allowable in his situation, and sought a reimbursement of related costs. The Force denied his request. Soon thereafter, he asked an official how he might challenge that decision. The official quickly and repeatedly told him he could “put in a grievance”.

The Grievor filed a grievance weeks later, on July 6, 2009. He cited June 3, 2009, as the day he was aggrieved. The parties were invited to address whether the grievance had been raised within the 30-day statutory limitation period. The Grievor urged that he was not immediately advised of his right to grieve and that he delayed grieving until all other options had run out. He also said his case was unusual and extenuating, but did not explain why. He continually refined his position as to when the time limit began. The Level I Adjudicator declared the grievance untimely, and found that a retroactive extension of the statutory limitation period was not justified. She held that the Grievor admittedly knew of the impugned decision on June 3, 2009, that his resolution attempts did not pause the time limit, and that the grievance date consequently fell outside the limitation period.

At Level II, the Grievor insisted that an undisclosed work schedule proved that he grieved on time.

The ERC found that the Level I decision was reasonable, particularly in view of the Grievor’s vague and conflicting submissions concerning the date upon which he learned of the Force’s decision. It also found that the work schedule was inadmissible as it was new information which could have been submitted at Level I. The ERC added that even if the schedule were to be considered, it would only add to the confusion created by the Grievor’s inconsistent submissions.

The ERC then found that a retroactive extension was not justified. It reached this finding by applying the adaptable and contextual test for extending time limits set out by the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (A-G) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96. It noted that while some factors favoured an extension, the Grievor’s failure to reasonably explain his delay in grieving was a vital consideration which supported an opposite finding. It stressed that because the Grievor’s explanations revealed a complete unfamiliarity with the most basic components of RCMP grievance policy, or were unsubstantiated, justice would not be done if a retroactive extension was granted. The ERC and the Commissioner of the RCMP have consistently held that grievors must be familiar with grievance authorities.

The ERC recommended that 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 that the Grievor presented his grievance beyond the statutory time period set out in the Act. The Grievor provided various differing explanations respecting the date he became aware of the Respondent's decision, but no evidence to support his claim that he learned of the decision within the thirty days before grieving. Further, there were no circumstances which would justify a retroactive extension.

The Commissioner dismissed the grievance.