Grievance Case Summary - G-724

The Grievor was a regular member. He submitted a claim for pre-approval of significant medical expenses which would be performed on his spouse, and for a less costly treatment which would be performed on him. He was reimbursed by the Force for the particular treatments performed on him. RCMP Health Services later informed the Grievor that the RCMP would not cover his spouse's expenses because she was not a member.

The Grievor argued that he should be entitled to reimbursement. He relied in part on Human Rights Legislation and what he referred to as a "pay equity" Charter argument. The Respondent argued that there was no authority to reimburse the particular treatment for the Grievor's spouse because she is not a member. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits. She found that the RCMP had complied with its Health Care Entitlements and Benefits Programs policy (AM XIV.1) and that its decision was not discriminatory.

The ERC found that the RCMP's decision was consistent with AM XIV.1, which authorized reimbursement of members for their own particular treatments, but not for their spouses' particular treatments.

The ERC further found that the decision was not discriminatory. In a case involving comparable facts, the Federal Court found that that the biological reality is that there are different particular treatments for males and females, and that it was "neither here nor there" if a female's particular treatment was more costly than a male's particular treatment, since one cannot claim discrimination because a particular treatment costs more than another. The ERC relied on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence which provides that the concept of substantive equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment, and found that the dollar figure reimbursed was irrelevant. What was relevant was the fact that AM XVI.1 entitled both male and female members to coverage for their particular treatments. Finally, the ERC pointed out that although the Grievor's spouse may have been covered had they lived in a different province, this was due to province's provincial health care plan, not to RCMP policy or federal legislation. The ERC found that a member's place of residence is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The ERC expressed disappointment that the outcome could not be different, but observed that the RCMP had followed its own policy and the law.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s denial of his claim for pre-approval of medical expenses which would be performed on his spouse who is not a member of the RCMP. At Level I, the Adjudicator rendered a decision on the merits, finding that although the grievance was timely and the Grievor had standing, he had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s decision was inconsistent with applicable legislation or RCMP policy. The matter was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was consistent with the relevant policy. The Commissioner accepts the ERC finding. The grievance is dismissed.