Grievance Case Summary - G-654

G-654

The Grievor resided at an isolated post with his spouse and two children. A local medical practitioner directed that the Grievor’s two-year-old daughter see a pediatrician. The nearest available pediatric practice was located almost 400 km away by road. The Grievor’s family had access to a medical air transport (Skedivac), but it only traveled three times per week and could only transport one adult escort with each patient. Due to the limitations of the Skedivac service, the family decided that the Grievor’s spouse would drive their daughter to the medical appointment.

After the trip, the Grievor submitted an Expense Claim for travel and incidentals at the higher of two kilometric rates available in policy. The Respondent determined that the Grievor was only entitled to compensation at the lower kilometric rate. The Grievor grieved this decision. After the Grievor’s Rebuttal, the Office for the Coordination of Grievances (OCG) invited the Respondent to “comment” on the Rebuttal. This prompted the Respondent to make additional substantive submissions. The Grievor then responded with his own substantive submissions.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. A Certificate of Service indicated that the Grievor was served with a copy of the Level I decision on December 6, 2013. The Grievor presented his grievance at Level II on December 21, 2013. The Grievor explained that he required additional time to examine the new policy authorities contained in the Level I decision.

The ERC found that the applicable regulatory framework does not contemplate submissions after a Rebuttal at Level I. Nevertheless, as the OCG invited the parties to make additional submissions at that point, the ERC found that this communication created a legitimate expectation that the parties could submit additional arguments prior to the Level I decision. Therefore, the ERC concluded that the parties’ submissions after the Rebuttal were admissible.

The ERC found that the Grievor was served with the Level I decision on December 6, 2013, pursuant to the Certificate of Service. The grievance was therefore presented one day after the 14-day limitation period outlined in paragraph 31(2)(b) of the RCMP Act. The ERC further found that a retroactive extension of time was not warranted. The Grievor’s sole explanation for the delay was based on his lack of adequate knowledge of the applicable grievance authorities, which, in the ERC’s view, was not a reasonable justification for the delay.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance on the basis that it was not presented at Level II within the 14 day time limit set forth in paragraph 31(2)(b) of the RCMP Act.