NC-112 - Medical Discharge

The Respondent ordered the Appellant to be discharged from the RCMP for having a disability as defined by the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). During his time as a police officer for the RCMP and another police force, the Appellant believed he was being racially harassed and racially profiled both on and off duty. This affected his mental health. Both his treating psychologist and the RCMP’s Independent Medical Examiner (IME) recommended that the Appellant be transferred out of the Division where he was working. Further, as late as 2020, the IME was of the view that the Appellant was not delusional, that his judgment was sound and that he was fit to return to full police duties.

The Appellant, while recovering, had two sets of Code of Conduct charges laid against him in relation to interactions with a non-RCMP police force. According to the IME, these interactions were inextricably related to the cause of the Appellant’s medical condition’s downward spiral. The RCMP did not entertain Graduated Return to Work (GRTW) outside of the Division in question.

Because his attending psychologist recommended a six to eight month Off Duty Sick (ODS) period, the HSO recommended, based on this report and the Appellant’s previous ODS history, that he be given a permanent O6 medical profile, meaning that the Appellant was not employable in the RCMP in any capacity.

In response to the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Recommend the Appellant’s discharge, the Appellant provided evidence of: recommendations that he be moved outside of the Division in question; explained why the Appellant was where he was and why in terms of his mental health; that he was a very motivated and good police officer and was simply asking to work in a racial harassment free environment.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision to discharge him. The Appellant had two main issues with the Decision: that the Respondent did not “grapple” with key evidence; and that the RCMP had not accommodated him up to the point of undue hardship.  

The ERC found the Decision to be clearly unreasonable. The Respondent failed to grapple and address with key evidence as to the prognosis of the Appellant’s health condition. The two IME letters, both before the Respondent, contained key information relating to his mental health and the requirement for him to be geographically relocated. The Respondent did not give reasons as to why he preferred the recommendation of the HSO, other than the fact that it was recommended the Appellant be ODS for an additional 6-8 months.

The underlying cause of the Appellant’s mental health state, according to the IME, was perceived racial discrimination that he was subjected to by a police force he both worked for (and lived in the area) and by the RCMP. In the IME’s opinion, this necessitated a move outside of the Division, which was not entertained by the RCMP. The ERC found that the RCMP made negligible efforts in finding an accommodation for the Appellant. Consequently, the ERC found that the RCMP had not accommodated the Appellant up to the point of undue hardship.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Appellant withdrew the appeal before the final decision maker could render their decision.