Grievance Case Summary - G-603

The Respondent signed a Notice of Intention to Discharge the Grievor (Notice of Intention) on the basis of disability. The Grievor submitted a grievance form containing two grievances. First, the Grievor contested the issuance of the Notice of Intention. Second, the Grievor disputed the way the Force served her with the Notice of Intention. The Respondent argued that the Grievor lacked standing to grieve the first matter.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor lacked standing to grieve the issuance of the Notice of Intention. The Adjudicator stated that the standing test included a requirement that there be no other redress process within the RCMP Act, RCMP Regulations or Commissioner's Standing Orders. The Adjudicator found that the RCMP Regulations contained provisions that set out a parallel process through which a medical discharge could be disputed. The Grievor submitted her grievance at Level II. The Grievor submitted that a decision by the Federal Court of Canada (FCC) in Lebrasseur vs. Canada, 2011 FC 1075, required her to deal with her concerns through the RCMP grievance process before raising those concerns in court.

The ERC found that the Grievor did not have standing to grieve the issuance of the Notice of Intention. Longstanding ERC and RCMP jurisprudence indicate that interim steps in the medical discharge process are not grievable. In addition, the RCMP Regulations contain an administrative discharge process through which a member may seek redress. If a member is permitted to proceed with parallel processes which have as their foundation one set of facts, the likelihood of undue delay and multiple proceedings could render the system unworkable. It could also create abuses of process. The FCC's decision in Lebrasseur is inadmissible, for two reasons. First, the Grievor seemingly filed it as evidence to prove she had standing to raise this grievance rather than solely as an authority regarding the issue of standing. The Grievor would have known of the decision at Level I. Second, the decision did not address the issue of standing to present a grievance.

The Grievor's presentation of two grievances under one form was a procedural irregularity. The ERC disregarded the second grievance given that the Respondent did not request a preliminary ruling on it, the parties were not heard and the Level I Adjudicator did not address the second grievance. If the question of standing had been raised with respect to the second grievance, the ERC would have found that the Grievor did not have standing, for the same reasons provided above.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied on the basis that the Grievor did not have standing under the RCMP Act to present the grievance.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent's decision to issue a Notice of Intention of Discharge and the manner in which the Respondent executed service of the Notice. The Respondent raised the preliminary issue of standing with regard to the issuance of the Notice. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor does not have standing because there is another process of redress under s. 20 of the Regulations and the Notice is not a decision, act or omission, and therefore is not subject to a grievance. The Commissioner also found that the Grievor does not have standing with regard to the service of the Notice for those same reasons. The grievance is denied.