Grievance Case Summary - G-562

On January 26, 2010, the Grievor learned that the Force had decided not to reimburse assorted relocation expenses he incurred during a promotional transfer. On March 5, 2010, he submitted a grievance form in which he challenged that decision. He acknowledged that he had initiated his grievance after the 30-day statutory Level I limitation period expired. Yet he insisted that he had neither the time nor the ability to grieve within 30 days of the disputed decision. He explained that after January 26, 2010, he worked one further day, then had six days off to prepare for a 26-day deployment at the Olympics in Whistler, British Columbia. His deployment began on February 2, 2010. He added that while he was in Whistler, he was very busy and had no access to a fax machine, scanner, or supporting documents. He said that he returned to his regular shift on March 5, 2010, at which time he completed and submitted his grievance form.

The Grievor sought a retroactive extension of the Level I time limit, under subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act. That provision permits the Commissioner of the RCMP (and the Commissioner's delegate) to extend certain time limits if s/he deems an extension to be warranted. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it was untimely, refusing to grant a retroactive extension.

The Grievor disagreed with that decision, and presented a Level II grievance. He reiterates that his Level I grievance was late because he was busy preparing for, and working at the Olympics, where he was unable to use a photocopier or a scanner. He adds that it takes time to marshal materials in support of a grievance. He feels he should have been given more preparation time.

In the ERC's view, a retroactive extension of the Level I limitation period was not warranted. It reached that conclusion, in part, by applying the adaptable and contextual test for extending time limits, as described by the Federal Court of Canada. The ERC deduced that a number of factors making up that test militated against an extension. Specifically, it was not clear if the Grievor had a continuing intention to grieve, or if the record raised an arguable case. Moreover, the Grievor's explanations for the delay were not reasonable, in light of his duty to be familiar with grievance authorities. The ERC noted that he could have grieved while on leave, either prior to or during his deployment, through a number of alternative means. He also could have asked someone to help him grieve on time. He further could have contacted the Office for the Coordination of Grievances for guidance. Additionally, the ERC observed that the Grievor confused the time necessary for preparing grievance submissions, with the time within which a grievance had to be filed. The Grievor did not have to offer supporting arguments or evidence during the Level I limitation period. He had only to file a form containing summary information during that period. Such a requirement was neither onerous nor overly time consuming.

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 findings and recommendations of the ERC and denied the grievance. The Commissioner concluded that the grievance was presented outside the thirty-day statutory time limit and that a retroactive extension of the time limit was not warranted.