Grievance Case Summary - G-532

In 2010, the Grievor was transferred to a post hundreds of kilometers away, and lost roughly $13,000 upon the sale of her home. She explained that “the market depressed significantly” after she and her husband bought the property. She later filed a claim for financial help under the Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), a benefit that is set out in the RCMP’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). On March 15, 2011, the Grievor learned that the Respondent had denied her claim on the basis that a qualifying condition was not met. She wished to grieve the decision. A Relocation Official (RO) told her to send her grievance directly to the Respondent.

On April 5, 2011, the Grievor emailed her completed grievance form to the Respondent. She politely indicated that she was grieving his decision, that she was new to the process, and that she was looking forward to his response. The email was opened that day, but nobody replied to it or took any related action. The Grievor waited a month. She then contacted the RO, who advised her to try again. On May 5, 2011, she sent the Respondent a follow-up email. It was opened that day. No related action was taken.

On May 18, 2011, the Grievor phoned the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG). It informed her that she had erred by giving her grievance directly to the Respondent, and that the Respondent had not passed along her emails. She offered her grievance to the OCG that day. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the ground that it was untimely. She held that the Grievor knew of the impugned decision on March 15, 2011, failed to familiarize herself with relevant policy, and grieved in excess of the statutory 30-day time limit. The Grievor contested this decision. She argued that the Adjudicator never considered the possibility of an extension.

The ERC agreed that the Grievor grieved outside the Level I limitation period. It then turned its mind to whether the Commissioner of the RCMP ought to exercise his statutory discretion to retroactively extend that deadline. Upon applying the appropriate legal test established by the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, it found that an extension was warranted. The record revealed that the Grievor had a continuing intention to grieve an arguable case which involved a considerable sum of money. It also revealed that the Grievor followed the instructions which various subject experts gave her, that she acted in good faith at all times, and that the Force was at least partly responsible for the delay as neither the Respondent nor anyone on his staff replied to her emails. Lastly, the Respondent did not allege that an extension would prejudice him, and nothing in the record demonstrated that it would.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance. It further recommended that he make an order to first extend retroactively the Level I limitation period, and then return the grievance to Level I for the process to continue.

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

The Commissioner agreed that the Grievor did not present the grievance to the proper authority within the time limit provided in subsection 31(2) of the Act. However, he was satisfied that the circumstances of the case justified an extension of the limitation period, pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the Act. He agreed with the ERC that the Grievor showed a continuing intention to grieve, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay and there was no prejudice to the Respondent in granting an extension.

The Commissioner ordered the file to be returned to the Level I Adjudicator so that the grievance could be continued on the merits.