Grievance Case Summary - G-556

In the months following his attendance at a grisly suicide scene, the Grievor became distracted, depressed, exhausted, and disengaged. He began binging on sugar. He also started pilfering change from a peer's work area within a police office. He was caught, and admitted to stealing from his peer numerous times. A Code of Conduct investigation was launched, and the Grievor was charged with Theft Under $5,000. The Grievor began seeing various health professionals, including Dr. R.H., who was a psychologist. Dr. R.H. prepared a report in which he diagnosed the Grievor with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a condition he linked to the Grievor's experience at the gruesome suicide scene. Dr. T.M., a Force psychologist, later wrote a report in which she questioned Dr. R.H.'s findings, though she admittedly never examined the Grievor.

The Respondent issued a Stoppage of Pay and Allowances Order (SPAO) against the Grievor. Per the relevant test, he believed the Grievor had been clearly involved in "outrageous" conduct that could amount to a Code of Conduct breach. He accepted that the Grievor had PTSD. Yet he did not think the PTSD and thefts were linked, partly in light of Dr. T.M.'s report. The Grievor filed a grievance. He argued that the Respondent failed to attach proper weight to the medical evidence. He also sought permission to submit a report by his psychiatrist, Dr. O.O. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She found that the Respondent had adequately considered the medical evidence. She also determined that while Dr. O.O.'s report may be admissible and might have "had an impact", she could not decide those matters as she did not have the report.

The Grievor grieved at Level II. He sent the ERC Dr. O.O.'s report, two reports from a different treating psychologist, some case law, and his rationale as to why all of those documents should be considered. The ERC received submissions from both parties on the issue of admissibility.

The ERC observed that the Level I Adjudicator should have asked to see Dr. O.O.'s report before replying to the Grievor's request that it be admitted. It ultimately found that all the materials the Grievor gave the ERC were admissible under applicable legislation, policy, and case law. Turning to the merits, the ERC found that the Respondent's decision to issue an SPAO was legally unsound, in two respects. First, he should not have downplayed Dr. R.H.'s evidence of a link between the Grievor's PTSD and conduct, in favour of speculation. Second, once the Force learned of the Grievor's condition, it had an obligation to find out if his thefts were linked to that condition. By basing the SPAO on an unsubstantiated finding that the Grievor's actions were unrelated to PTSD, the Force deprived itself of information vital to an analysis of whether he had engaged in "outrageous" conduct warranting an SPAO. The ERC acknowledged that stealing within a police station is reprehensible. Yet in view of the evidence, it found that the Grievor's thefts were clearly linked to PTSD, and that they therefore could not reasonably be viewed as outrageous. As a result, it concluded that the SPAO was not justified.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he allow the grievance and overturn the Grievor's SPAO. It also recommended that he reinstate the Grievor's pay and allowances, retroactive to the date the SPAO was issued (i.e. May 13, 2011).

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

The Commissioner denied this grievance, pertaining to the stoppage of the Grievor's pay and allowances based on allegations that the Grievor stole money from a colleague's desk and jacket. The Commissioner found that the behaviour was so outrageous as to justify the suspension without pay order.