NC-232 - Harassment

The Appellant was on extended medical leave due to a disabling injury for much of the period between April 2015 and January 2020. The Appellant returned to work on a graduated return to work plan. In July 2020, he submitted a medical certificate temporarily restricting him from working at the detachment. He was temporarily assigned to other detachments until October 2021. In November 2020, the Appellant’s medical restriction became permanent. As a result of his inability to work at the detachment, the Force continued to make efforts to locate comparable positions for him. In September 2021, two vacant positions were identified at other detachments, one at the Appellant’s level and the other at a similar level. Other options were discussed with the Appellant, including the possibility of filling a new position within the specialized unit where he had been temporarily assigned. However, he was later informed that he did not meet the employment requirements for this position.

The Appellant was advised that he could request a voluntary medical discharge should he decline both employment offers that were made to him. In the alternative, the Appellant was informed that an administrative discharge process would be initiated. Considering that the Appellant declined both offers, discharge proceedings were commenced against him. In July 2022, the Appellant was served with a Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) signed by the Respondent. In his written and oral submissions in response to the NOI, the Appellant expressed his disagreement with the administrative discharge process and requested some time to sign and submit a request for a voluntary medical retirement.

In September 2022, the Respondent issued an Order to Discharge the Appellant, reasoning that his disability would continue to prohibit him from satisfying basic employment obligations and that the RCMP had met its duty to accommodate the Appellant’s disability to the point of undue hardship. In response to the Appellant’s request for time to request a voluntary discharge, the Respondent simply indicated that the medical discharge process is separate and distinct from the process of an administrative discharge.

The Appellant presented an appeal of the Order to Discharge on the basis that it was clearly unreasonable: The Respondent failed to address his key argument being that he wished to pursue a voluntary medical retirement and to provide sufficient reasons as to why he concluded that the Appellant had to be administratively discharged, as opposed to being afforded some time to request for a voluntary medical retirement.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient given that they failed to address the key issue and concern raised by the Appellant and to reveal a coherent and rational chain of analysis between the evidence and the conclusion at which the Respondent arrived. Further, the ERC took issue with the fact that the Respondent failed to examine and address the medical certificate that had been provided by the Appellant’s physician attesting that the Appellant was unfit for duty and that the medical review had been done to accommodate a voluntary medical retirement. On this basis, the ERC went on to conclude that the Respondent’s Decision to administratively discharge the Appellant was clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed and that the administrative discharge be rescinded. It further recommends that the Appellant be reinstated in the Force retroactively to the date of the Order to Discharge, with complete remuneration and allowances.