Grievance Case Summary - G-563

The Grievor was temporarily assigned to duties in Vancouver during the 2010 Winter Olympics. During his 45-day stay, he was required to share a cabin with another individual on board a cruise ship used as accommodation for deployed members. The Grievor found this arrangement uncomfortable and challenging, resulting in loss of privacy and significant fatigue due to lack of sleep. His duty in Vancouver ended on March 2, 2010. The Grievor chose not to grieve this situation. Rather, nearly one month after returning from Vancouver, he claimed a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) for each night spent in the ship cabin. The Grievor's claim was denied on April 2, 2010 on the basis that his cabin was a commercial accommodation for which a PAA was not allowable.

On April 28, 2010, the Grievor submitted a grievance. Although he identified the PAA denial as the subject of his grievance, he also wrote that he was prejudiced by the Force's failure to provide him with single occupancy accommodation during his deployment and noted various discomforts incurred as a result of his shared cabin. Following an exchange of submissions, a Level I Adjudicator ruled that the Grievor had failed to meet the 30-day time limit to present a grievance. She concluded that the Grievor ought to have presented his grievance within 30 days of experiencing the challenging conditions encountered in the cabin, rather than waiting to grieve the subsequent denial of the PAA claim. The Grievor disagreed with that decision and presented a Level II grievance. He asserted that the basis of his grievance was the denial of the PAA claim.

In the ERC's view, the Level I grievance was untimely. The cause of the Grievor's dissatisfaction was clearly the purportedly sub-standard accommodation provided to him in Vancouver until March 2, 2010. When the Grievor requested a PAA on March 29, 2010, he referred to the difficult conditions encountered on board the ship and the Force's failure to provide him with accommodation that met required standards. The ERC found that the Grievor ought to have grieved the Force's alleged failure to provide suitable accommodation no later than 30 days after returning from Vancouver, rather than wait for a subsequent denial of his PAA claim.

The ERC concluded that a retroactive extension of the Level I limitation period was not warranted. It applied the adaptable and contextual test for extending time limits as described by the Federal Court of Canada. Specifically, the ERC found that the record did not disclose an ongoing intention to grieve, as the Grievor had merely sought compensation for substandard accommodation by filing a PAA claim 27 days after returning from Vancouver. Further, the ERC found that the Grievor had not provided a reasonable explanation for presenting his grievance 56 days after returning from Vancouver. Finally, the ERC was not convinced that the case as portrayed by the Grievor was arguable, given that his arguments could not have resulted in the remedy sought.

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

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

The Commissioner denied the grievance, as recommended by the ERC. The Commissioner found that this grievance, pertaining to living accommodations while temporarily deployed to duties during the 2010 Winter Olympics, was untimely as it should have been presented within thirty days from the date the Grievor became aware of alleged unsatisfactory accommodations.