Grievance Case Summary - G-653

In January 2011, the Appellant received a Notice of Intention to Discharge her from the RCMP on the basis of a disability. The Notice stated that a Medical Board consisting of three doctors, one of whom to be nominated by the Grievor, would be appointed to ascertain the degree of her disability. The Grievor Lawyer advised the Force of the identity of the Grievor’s nominee in May 2011. Then, in June 2012, the Grievor’s Lawyer and the Force corresponded about the Medical Board process. The Grievor’s nominee later received a letter from the RCMP which outlined the mandate of the Medical Board. The Grievor obtained a copy of that letter in early October 2012.

In late October 2012, the Grievor filed a grievance, disputing the decision to appoint the Medical Board. The Case Manager invited the Grievor to provide a submission on the preliminary issue of timeliness. However, no submission was received. The Level I Adjudicator ultimately denied the grievance, finding that it had been initiated after the expiration of the 30-day Level I statutory limitation period. The Grievor promptly presented her grievance at Level II. After receiving two separate requests for a submission, the Grievor wrote to the Case Manager that “I want my grievance to go to Level II as it is”. Sadly, the Grievor passed away during the Level II process.

The ERC found that, although the Grievor’s death could potentially render the grievance moot, discretion should be exercised to hear the case. The Commissioner could find that the matter is not moot, and would therefore require the ERC’s analysis of the central issues before rendering a decision. Additionally, on a more personal level, the Grievor’s family has an interest in seeing that closure is brought to the grievance process.

The ERC went on to find the Level I grievance was untimely. Pursuant to paragraph 31(2)(a) of the RCMP Act, a Level I grievance has to be commenced within 30 days after the date on which the aggrieved member knew or reasonably ought to have known of the impugned decision. The evidence showed that the Grievor became aware of the impugned decision to appoint a Medical Board in January 2011 and by no later than June 2012, anywhere from 4 to 24 months before she grieved that decision. The Grievor did not offer any submissions as to why the grievance should be considered timely, although the OCG invited her to do so on more than one occasion.

The ERC further found that an extension of the Level I limitation period was not warranted. It reached this conclusion by applying the flexible and adaptable four-factor test for extending time limits, as set forth by the Federal Court of Canada. The ERC concluded that none of the factors making up that test favoured an extension. The Grievor did not possess a continuing intention to grieve at Level I. It was unclear if the grievance disclosed an arguable case. No explanation for the delay in grieving was provided. An extension would have been prejudicial to the RCMP.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied.