NC-195 - Medical Discharge

The Appellant sustained a physical injury and was on a medical leave from duty with an intermittent Return to Work accommodation for a number of years. At a certain point, she became continuously absent from duty on sick leave. During this time, the RCMP engaged with the Appellant in an effort to obtain updated medical information to support her ongoing sick leave.     

Discharge proceedings were initiated and a Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) was issued. The Appellant provided a response to the NOI in which she made a number of arguments supporting her view that she should not be discharged because she had cooperated during the accommodation process and the RCMP did not fulfill its duty to accommodate her. 

The Respondent issued a Decision, ordering the Appellant’s discharge on the following bases: having a disability, as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.H-6, and being absent from duty without authorization. In his Decision, the Respondent summarized some of the steps that had been taken by the RCMP to inform the Appellant about the requirement to provide updated medical information to support her sick leave. He found that the Appellant had refused to provide the requested information and as a result, she was absent from duty without authorization. The Respondent concluded that the Appellant either had a medical condition that precluded her from working with the RCMP in any capacity for the foreseeable future or she had a disability that could perhaps be accommodated but due to her lack of cooperation, this could not be assessed. The Respondent noted that the RCMP had a duty to accommodate the Appellant, but she prevented this from happening and that it was unlikely that she would return to work.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. On appeal, she argued that the Respondent made a clearly unreasonable Decision because the reasons were insufficient. She also argued that the Respondent’s Decision was clearly unreasonable because the requirements for a medical discharge were not met, she was not absent without authorization, the Respondent failed to consider relevant facts and made findings that were not based on current medical evidence and that the RCMP failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship. The Appellant argued that her procedural fairness rights had been breached when the Respondent refused to disclose certain documents that she had requested after the NOI was issued. The Appellant also argued that her section 15 Canadian Charter of Human Rights had been breached.  

The ERC found that the Respondent made a clearly unreasonable Decision because he did not provide reasons that were responsive to the Appellant’s arguments raised in her response to the NOI.

The Respondent did not meaningfully grapple with the Appellant’s central concern that she did not cause the accommodation process to fail and that she had cooperated with the RCMP, to the best of her ability. Given that the Decision had the potential for a severe impact on the Appellant, the Respondent had a heightened duty to provide reasons that were responsive to the concern she had raised. 

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed and that the Appellant be reinstated and remunerated retroactive to the date of her discharge.