G-792 - Harassment

The Grievor alleged that in 2009 and 2010, his detachment commander engaged in harassing and discriminatory actions towards him, based on his race. As a result, in 2011, the Grievor submitted a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). In 2012, the CHRC advised the Grievor that he should exhaust the available RCMP grievance process. The Grievor subsequently presented the grievance to the RCMP, naming his detachment commander as the Respondent.

The grievance was denied on the preliminary issue of timeliness at Level I.

The Grievor submitted the grievance at Level II. Although the Grievor acknowledged that the grievance was untimely at Level I, he believed that he should receive an extension of time pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act.

The Grievor asserted that there was a reasonable explanation for his untimely grievance presentation. Namely, that the Divisional Staff Relations Representative erroneously led him to believe that the RCMP grievance process was not available to him. 

The ERC found that the grievance should be denied. The ERC determined there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of the statutory time limit to present the grievance at Level I.

In Attorney General v. Pentney (Pentney), the Federal Court (FC) adopted a four-factor test for determining whether to grant an extension of time to commence a proceeding before an administrative tribunal. Although the ERC concluded that the grievance met the threshold of one of the factors, that there was an arguable case, the weight of the three other factors militated against granting an extension of the limitation period. First, the Grievor failed to demonstrate that he had a continuing intention to pursue the grievance. Second, he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. Finally, a two-year extension to the 30-day limitation period would be highly inordinate and prejudicial to the Respondent. In balancing the Pentney factors, the ERC concluded that it would not be in the interests of justice to recommend an extension. 

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Grievor alleged being the victim of harassment through a number of incidents, the last of which was on September 12, 2010. The Grievance was dismissed at Level I for not meeting the statutory time limitation period and the Adjudicator did not find sufficient justification to grant a retroactive time extension. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The case was referred to the RCMP ERC; upon examination, it recommended for the Grievance to be dimissed as being untimely and there being no justification to grant a retroactive time extension. The Commissioner concurs with the ERC recommendation and finds that the Greivance was not presented prior to the expiration of the statutory time limitation period and that there is insufficent justification to grant a retroactive time extension. Thus, he dimsssed the grievance.