Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on whether the RCMP Final Level Adjudicator unreasonably upheld the removal of Cpl. Brian Heideman from the Emergency Response Team (ERT) as an exercise of managerial discretion.

• Dispute over the legal characterization of removal from a part-time, specialized ERT role, and whether intrafunctional transfer policy properly applied given the impact on status, career prospects, and income.

• Allegation that the ERT removal amounted to “disguised discipline” flowing from the same overtime incident that had already been investigated and resolved in Cpl. Heideman’s favour.

• Concern that the decision-maker failed to grapple with key facts, including the prior conduct investigation outcome and the seriousness of a purported failure to follow a lawful order under the RCMP Code of Conduct.

• Application of the Vavilov reasonableness framework, requiring a rational, coherent chain of analysis that “adds up” in light of the facts, policies and Code of Conduct regime.

• Court found the Final Level Adjudicator’s reasoning deficient, set aside the decision, remitted the grievance for redetermination, and awarded Cpl. Heideman lump-sum costs of $3,000.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case involves an application for judicial review brought by the Applicant, Cpl. Brian Heideman of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, against the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. Cpl. Heideman’s regular posting was with the North Okanagan Traffic Service Team in British Columbia, and he also served part-time on the Southeast District Emergency Response Team (ERT), a specialized high-risk unit. The dispute centres on his removal from this ERT role and the internal RCMP grievance decisions that upheld that removal. The triggering event was a January 2019 ERT deployment in Kamloops. Cpl. Heideman was scheduled to work with his home unit but was deployed with the ERT instead. Afterward, he sought and obtained agreement from his ERT team leader and his home unit supervisor to retroactively adjust his schedule so he could claim overtime for the ERT work, a practice they indicated was common. When his team leader later expressed doubts, allegedly relaying a direction from Critical Incident Commander Insp. Perry Smith not to proceed, Cpl. Heideman says he did not receive a clear order but only uncertainty about policy. He consulted a former staff relations representative and supervisors, who confirmed the practice was not prohibited, and he submitted the overtime claim. He was then subject to a Code of Conduct investigation for allegedly falsifying information to obtain unearned overtime and was removed from ERT duties and gear in front of his team. After about four months, the conduct authority found no express policy prohibiting the retroactive schedule change and cleared him of misconduct, while cautioning him about ethical expectations.

Removal from the ERT and grievance process

Following his exoneration, Cpl. Heideman asked to be reinstated to the ERT. Insp. Smith refused and relied on an alleged failure to follow the direction not to submit the overtime claim and on several minor performance issues. Cpl. Heideman filed a grievance under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, arguing that the refusal to reinstate him lacked proper grounds once the misconduct allegation had been dismissed, that any performance concerns were too minor to justify removal and were not handled according to performance management policy, and that the removal was in substance disguised discipline for the same overtime incident, contrary to principles such as issue estoppel. He sought reinstatement and compensation for lost overtime and operational readiness pay. An Initial Level Adjudicator dismissed the grievance, treating removal from the ERT as akin to an intrafunctional transfer rather than a demotion or discharge, and emphasizing management’s need for “complete faith” in ERT members. The adjudicator concluded that formal conduct or performance-management safeguards did not apply and rejected the disguised discipline argument, stressing that the original conduct allegation concerned falsified overtime information, while the removal was said to rest on loss of trust and performance concerns. A Final Level Adjudicator upheld this decision, again characterizing the removal as a matter of staffing discretion and finding no evidence of retaliation or disguised discipline.

Court’s analysis on authority and disguised discipline

On judicial review, the court applied the Vavilov reasonableness framework and reviewed the Final Level Adjudicator’s reasons as a whole. On the authority issue, the court accepted that RCMP decision-makers have expertise in applying internal policies but held that this does not exempt them from demonstrating a rational chain of analysis. The court found it unreasonable that the Final Level Adjudicator adopted the intrafunctional transfer policy without addressing clear differences between a routine lateral move and removal from a prestigious, career-advancing ERT role that carried substantial financial consequences and had been a central motivation for Cpl. Heideman’s career. These impacts were not meaningfully considered when concluding that only intrafunctional transfer rules applied. On disguised discipline, the court emphasized that a proper analysis must look at all surrounding facts. Here, the same alleged failure to follow a lawful order, normally treated as a Code of Conduct issue under section 3.3 and the formal conduct regime, was flagged for investigation but never pursued or proven. After Cpl. Heideman was cleared of misconduct regarding the overtime claim, that untested allegation was instead used administratively to justify his removal from the ERT, alongside minor performance issues that were not even recorded. The court held that these circumstances at least suggested a disciplinary purpose and required careful engagement. Instead, the Final Level Adjudicator simply asserted that there was “no evidence” of disguised discipline and accepted Insp. Smith’s justification at face value, which the court found did not “add up”.

Outcome and monetary consequences

The court held that the Final Level Adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable in its treatment of both the applicable policy framework and the disguised discipline allegation. The application for judicial review was granted in favour of the Applicant, Brian Heideman. The decision of the Final Level Adjudicator was set aside and the grievance was remitted for redetermination in line with the court’s reasons. The court did not itself award damages for lost overtime or operational readiness pay, leaving that question to the renewed grievance process, but it did award lump-sum costs in the amount of $3,000 to the Applicant as the successful party.