Background
Sergeant Brian Merriman, a 20-year RCMP veteran, applied in 2021 for the position of non-commissioned officer in charge of the Conduct Advisor Unit of E Division at the rank of staff sergeant. He was not selected; the successful candidate was already working within the unit. Following the rejection, Sgt. Merriman received a written rationale from the selecting line officer, as required by RCMP policy.
Sgt. Merriman filed a grievance under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC 1985, c R-10, raising three main complaints: (1) the successful candidate’s competency examples were defective and he should not have been short-listed; (2) the selection committee’s written rationale improperly relied on a competency — “networking and relationship building” — that had not been listed as essential in the job posting, effectively imposing a hidden requirement; and (3) the composition and conduct of the selection committee gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in favour of the internal candidate. His grievance was dismissed at both the initial and final levels of the RCMP’s internal grievance process.
Sgt. Merriman, self-represented, then brought an application for judicial review of the final level decision in Federal Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Grammond dismissed the application, finding that Sgt. Merriman had not demonstrated that the final level adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable under the Vavilov framework (2019 SCC 65). The Court first clarified the two-tier internal review structure: the initial level adjudicator’s role is to assess whether applicable policies were followed, not to substitute its judgment for management’s; the final level adjudicator’s narrower role — set out in subsection 18(2) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals), SOR/2014-289 — is to determine only whether the initial level decision was procedurally unfair, legally erroneous, or “clearly unreasonable” (equivalent to patent unreasonableness), not to conduct a full de novo review. The Court rejected the argument that Vavilov required the final level adjudicator to apply the reasonableness standard internally.
On the merits, the Court upheld all three of the final level adjudicator’s findings. Regarding the allegedly defective competency example, the adjudicator reasonably confined the grievance review to policy compliance rather than re-evaluating the substance of the successful candidate’s examples — a task reserved for the validation committee. The Court distinguished Russell v Commissioner of RCMP, 2013 FC 755, noting that case turned on an unusual irregularity (suppressed information about misleading examples) not present here. On the rationale’s reference to “networking and relationship building,” the Court found the adjudicator reasonably relied on Storozuk v Canada (AG), 2017 FC 4, which affirms a selecting line officer’s broad discretion to identify the “right fit” candidate using an open range of factors beyond the posted essential competencies. Finally, on bias, the Court held the adjudicator properly applied the correct legal test — requiring more than mere disagreement with the outcome or speculation — and that there was no reversible error in the absence of a citation to Yukon Francophone School Board, 2015 SCC 25.
Key Takeaways
- In the RCMP’s two-tier grievance system, the final level adjudicator applies a “clearly unreasonable” (patent unreasonableness) standard to the initial level decision — not the Vavilov reasonableness standard — and Vavilov does not alter that internal standard of review.
- A grievance adjudicator’s role is limited to assessing policy compliance; it does not extend to re-evaluating the substantive merits of a successful candidate’s competency examples unless there is an irregularity in the process itself (such as the suppression of material information flagged in Russell).
- A selecting line officer may lawfully reference skills or competencies beyond those listed as essential in a job posting when providing a written “right fit” rationale, provided those factors relate to the position’s duties and no undisclosed mandatory requirement is imposed.
- An allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias in a selection process requires tangible evidence beyond dissatisfaction with the outcome; a “constellation of errors” narrative that amounts to disagreement with the decision will not suffice.
Why It Matters
This decision provides useful guidance on the limited scope of RCMP grievance adjudication, reinforcing that internal appellate bodies within the force apply a more deferential standard than the administrative-law reasonableness review courts conduct under Vavilov. Counsel advising RCMP members on promotion grievances should note that challenging the substance of a successful candidate’s competency examples will rarely succeed absent evidence of a process irregularity, and that broadly worded bias allegations unsupported by direct evidence face a high evidentiary threshold.
More broadly, the case illustrates the limits of judicial review for discretionary employment selection decisions within hierarchical public-sector organizations. Courts will generally decline to second-guess “right fit” assessments by selecting officers so long as the process conforms to policy, even where the rationale touches on factors not expressly enumerated in the job posting.