Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review of an RCMP Final Level Adjudicator’s decision upholding the dismissal of Constable Daniel Steffes’ grievance over a delayed transfer to an Indigenous Policing Services position.

• Evidentiary dispute over whether the delay was caused by ordinary staffing/logistical issues or by a third-party grievance filed by another RCMP member.

• Critical emails in the record showed senior officers recommending that the IPS position be left vacant pending the outcome of another member’s grievance, undermining the finding that staffing issues caused the delay.

• The Final Level Adjudicator misapplied the “patently unreasonable” standard by accepting a factual finding that was not supported by the evidence and was contradicted by the record.

• Interpretation of RCMP Career Management Manual policy 3.1.1.15, which states that a grievance or appeal “will not suspend or otherwise delay the transfer process,” and whether it can be sidestepped in cases involving third-party grievances.

• The court granted the judicial review, set aside the Final Level decision, ordered redetermination by a different adjudicator, and awarded the applicant all-inclusive costs of $3,000.00.

Facts and background

Constable Daniel Steffes of the RCMP was selected on July 8, 2020 for a lateral transfer to an Indigenous Policing Services position in Sidney/North Saanich. He was told the next day that the timing of his move depended on other staffing changes expected to be completed by September 2020. Shortly afterward, another officer associated with the same Indigenous posting was expected to file a grievance, and internal emails show recommendations to leave the IPS position vacant while that grievance and related discussions proceeded. Constable Steffes filed his own grievance on October 21, 2020, alleging that his transfer was improperly delayed because of the other member’s grievance, contrary to the RCMP Career Management Manual policy that a grievance should not delay a transfer. He was eventually transferred to the IPS role on March 22, 2021, before his grievance was decided.

Grievance decisions at the initial and final levels

The Initial Level Adjudicator found the grievance was not moot due to tax implications and dismissed it on the merits, accepting that the delay flowed from administrative and COVID-19-related staffing issues and reading the policy on grievances and transfers as applying only when a member grieves their own transfer. The Final Level Adjudicator declined to order further disclosure, applied a “patently unreasonable” threshold to review the first decision, and upheld both the factual finding that the delay arose from staffing and logistical matters and the conclusion that the transfer policy did not cover delays caused by a third-party grievance.

Key legal issues and court’s assessment

On judicial review, the court focused on whether the Final Level decision was reasonable in light of the evidentiary record and the proper approach to interpreting the transfer policy. The court held that the July 9, 2020 email relied upon by the adjudicators only set out conditions for the transfer and did not prove that staffing or logistical shortages actually caused the delay, whereas other emails directly linked the postponement to another member’s grievance and a direction not to fill the position. It concluded that the factual finding attributing the delay to staffing was not supported by the evidence and was contradicted by clear documentary records, making it patently unreasonable. The court also found that the interpretation of the policy in CMM 3.1.1.15 lacked any meaningful analysis of its text, context, and purpose, and that simply asserting it did not apply to third-party grievances, without explanation, fell short of the transparency and justification required under the reasonableness standard.

Outcome and costs

The court granted the application by the applicant, Daniel Steffes, against the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, and set aside the Final Level Adjudicator’s April 9, 2024 decision. It ordered that the grievance be redetermined by a different final level adjudicator so that the evidence and the policy on grievances and transfers can be reassessed. The court also awarded the applicant his costs in the all-inclusive amount of $3,000.00, with no additional damages specified.