NC-045 - Medical Discharge

Between 2005 and 2015 the Appellant was absent from duty for medical reasons and/or participating in various forms of accommodation through modified work schedules, reduced hours of work, temporary relocation, duty restrictions, physical transfer, and multiple graduated return to work processes. The Appellant participated in a number of return to work (RTW) plans over the 10-year period, three of them being successful in returning the Appellant to full operational duties. A fourth graduated RTW (GRTW) was attempted for the Appellant from March 23 to June 4, 2015. However, this attempt ended when the Appellant went on sick leave. On January 4, 2016, the Appellant started his last GRTW. The record indicates that the Appellant was performing well and he was respecting his RTW agreement. The record indicates that the Appellant had achieved working full time by March 1, 2016. However, the OIC of his unit prepared a Preliminary Recommendation to Discharge on the same day that the Appellant started his latest GRTW. This Preliminary Recommendation was followed by a Recommendation to Discharge on March 29, 2016.

The Appellant was previously medically discharged from the Force. That discharge was appealed and the ERC recommended in NC-007 that the matter be remitted with directions for rendering a new decision because the Appellant’s right to be heard had been denied. The Appeal Adjudicator agreed with the ERC. The Force then re-initiated the discharge process, which led to the discharge order which is the subject of the present appeal.

The ERC found that the Respondent had made a manifest and determinative error in relying on the Appellant’s involvement in outside activities and the related disciplinary matter (NC-007) in his assessment of the duty to accommodate. The ERC further found that the Respondent made a manifest and determinative error in his finding that these activities were not in line with the Appellant’s limitations and restrictions. Lastly, the ERC found that the Force did not fulfill its duty to accommodate in that the Respondent based his assessment that the Force had reached undue hardship on assumptions and insufficient evidence.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

Final Level: Between 2005 and 2016, the Appellant was either absent from duty for medical reasons or was participating in various graduated return to work (GRTW) plans through modified work schedules, reduced hours of work, temporary relocation, and duty restrictions. During this time, the Appellant successfully completed three GRTW plans.

On January 4, 2016, the Appellant commenced his last GRTW. The same day, the Respondent initiated discharge proceedings despite notes in the record indicating that the Appellant was performing well and respecting his return to work agreement. The Appellant was ultimately discharged from the Force.

The Appellant appealed and argued that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable as the Force failed to establish that it accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review, pursuant to paragraph 17(d)(i) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014. The Chair of the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed. The Adjudicator was not persuaded that the RCMP had accommodated the Appellant to the point of undue hardship and found that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable. The appeal was allowed.