Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

NC-126 - Time Limits

The Appellant filed her appeal more than 14 days after she received the Decision. The Appellant originally received a copy of the Decision by email. Three days later, at the Appellant’s request, another email was sent with a copy of the Decision. Upon the Appellant receiving that email, the Appellant expressed a desire to challenge some of the findings. In response, the Appellant was informed of her ability to appeal and was provided a copy of the relevant Commissioner’s Standing Orders.

The Appellant then waited to receive a physical copy of the Decision. After not receiving a physical copy, and beyond the 14 day time limit, the Appellant decided to file her Statement of Appeal with the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals. The appeal then proceeded normally. Upon the matter being referred to the ERC, the timeliness of the appeal was raised and each party had an opportunity to make submissions.

The Appellant did not contest that she submitted her appeal late. Rather, she argued that she waited for a physical copy of the Decision and, when it became apparent that it was not coming, the Appellant filed her Statement of Appeal.

ERC Findings

ln applying the four-factor test adopted by the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, the ERC finds that the Appellant has not met her burden in demonstrating that she had a continuing intention to pursue the matter or that there was a reasonable explanation for her delay in filing this appeal. As a result, the ERC concludes that an extension of the statutory limitation period is not warranted and that the appeal should be denied because it is out of time.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommended that the appeal be denied.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated May 30, 2023

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

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s finding that the allegations of harassment she made were not established. Although the limitation period is 14 days, the Appellant filed her appeal nearly one month after receiving the decision.

The appeal was referred to the ERC. The ERC found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that she had a continuing intention to pursue the matter or that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the ERC concluded that an extension of the statutory limitation was not warranted. The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC and dismissed the appeal. 

Between January 2014 and October 2017, several events took place that the Appellant perceived as harassment by the Alleged Harasser.  According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser had a negative influence on his career for several years.  In his view, this caused him to be discouraged, depressed and devoid of all ambition within the RCMP.

As the decision-maker on the harassment complaint, the Respondent did not mandate an investigation and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the alleged behaviour did not amount to harassment of the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed the matter on the grounds that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness, was based on an error of law and was clearly unreasonable.  He argued that the Respondent was not impartial, failed to conduct an overall assessment by breaking down the series of events and erred by failing to mandate an investigation to gather evidence.

The case was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC).  After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC found that the Respondent should have mandated an investigation to fully understand the situation.  The ERC found that the failure to mandate an investigation resulted in the Respondent failing to obtain relevant information, which meant he was unable to make an informed decision.  The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was therefore clearly unreasonable.  Consequently, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Adjudicator determined that the Respondent should have indeed pursued an investigation to obtain a minimum level of information and that the failure to do so prevented a fully informed decision from being made on whether or not harassment occurred.  The Adjudicator found that the decision was therefore clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal.

The Adjudicator remitted the matter to a new decision-maker with directions that an investigation be conducted.

Page details

Date modified: