NC-295 - Medical Discharge

The Appellant joined the Force in 2011. He spent the next decade or so doing operational work, with no reported health issues. In 2022, he developed what would become a two-year series of varied and shifting medical conditions. This caused him to miss a considerable amount of work. The Force prepared a sequence of Graduated Return to Work (GRTW) plans, some of which it amended further to the Appellant’s requests. But the Appellant could not complete any of them. 

In mid-2024, the Force held a medical discharge proceeding. The Appellant presented detailed submissions as well as several supporting documents. One of the documents was a letter from his doctor which updated the status of his conditions, observed improvements, and concluded that he could “do administrative work without restrictions” (Final Medical Letter). However, the Respondent did not ask the Health Services Officer (HSO) to review or address that document.

The Respondent discharged the Appellant from the Force on the ground that he had a disability the Force could not accommodate absent undue hardship (Decision). The Respondent was not swayed by the Final Medical Letter, stating that the Appellant had not completed a GRTW plan even though a doctor had cleared his return before. On appeal, the Appellant raised procedural fairness concerns and said the Force failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The ERC did not share the Appellant’s procedural fairness concerns. He clearly received proper notice of the case that was decided, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The ERC went on to find that the conclusion that the Force accommodated the Appellant to the point of undue hardship was not supported by the record and the law. The Respondent wrongly grounded the Decision on the Appellant’s earlier, unsuccessful attempts to return to work, while dismissing recent medical evidence confirming that he could return. There are various reasons why a member with a disability might not be able to return to work on a first or ensuing attempt. Setbacks should not necessarily be relied on to bar further attempts. This is not to suggest that every member with a disability is entitled to receive several opportunities to try to return to work. What is reasonable, and what amounts to undue hardship, is fact specific. In this case, a global analysis revealed the Appellant was absent for the better part of two years. This was significant. But when a member deals with varied conditions that arise, fluctuate, change and improve over time, a decision-maker should be wary of treating previous, failed attempts to return to work as decisive. If the Respondent had concerns about the Final Medical Letter, he could have sought out the Appellant’s doctor for clarification or obtained the HSO’s opinion. The election to simply dismiss the Final Medical Letter without doing either made the Decision clearly unreasonable.

The ERC recommends allowing the appeal, revoking the Decision, reinstating the Appellant with retroactive pay and allowances, having the HSO comment on the Final Medical Letter (as well as any new evidence), and then determining how best to proceed.