Grievance question

[JustAnotherZoomie]

It's a zinger for a first post, but here goes...

A grievance has a decision rendered by DGCFGA as final authority. In that decision, it refers to the fact that "there is no appeal within the CF with respect to the decision of DGCFGA. IAW the NDA S. 29.15, a decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court."

It also states that "should you wish to seek review of the decision of DGCFGA, you can do so through the Federal Courts within 30 days of receipt of this letter".

My question is - the Federal Court route aside, where does the Ombudsman fit into the picture from an "appeal" perspective? Did the decision omit to mention that avenue, or is there something prohibiting a member from appealing a decision via that route, once the grievance process is complete?

 

[3rd Horseman]

My question is - the Federal Court route aside, where does the Ombudsman fit into the picture from an "appeal" perspective?

You cannot appeal through the Ombudsman, he is there to assist if you feel you have been dealt with unfairly in the processes not to be a lever in that process. So best advise is to appeal to the Fed court if you are right, accept the decision if you are wrong and soldier on. If you feel you have been wronged in the approach to the processes then a complaint is in order along with the appeal to the Fed court. Good luck. Try a search of duties/mandate of the ombudsman.

 

[JustAnotherZoomie]

You cannot appeal through the Ombudsman, he is there to assist if you feel you have been dealt with unfairly in the processes not to be a lever in that process. So best advise is to appeal to the Fed court if you are right, accept the decision if you are wrong and soldier on. If you feel you have been wronged in the approach to the processes then a complaint is in order along with the appeal to the Fed court. Good luck. Try a search of duties/mandate of the ombudsman.

Okay, I was thinking an either/or situation - Court or Ombudsman.  I did look at the Ombudsman's website and his mandate prior to making the post.  What I was unclear about was where the Ombudsman's site says "Except in compelling circumstances, the Ombudsman shall not deal with a complaint if the complainant has not, within the applicable time limit, first availed himself or herself of one or more of the following existing mechanisms available to the complainant - the CF redress of grievance process, etc.".  I was trying to figure out if that meant the Ombudsman was the next step in the process, or if it becomes an A/B decision - Court or Ombudsman.

So can I assume from your post that the Ombudsman's office can assist in the Court proceedings, if that's the only route available?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Zoomie]

I guess it all depends on the severity of your Redress.

The Federal Courts are not too interested in cease training issues or the like.  If you have been screwed out of money, pension or seniority - then you may have a case.

 

[PO2FinClk]

I believe the Ombudsman would be the next course of action IF you believed the complaint "mechanism", or process, was not administered fairly. As 3rd Horseman explains, by that mean that the process itself was not conducted in a fair and judicious fashion, NOT the resulting decision. The Ombudsman could then intervene to ensure the grievance is administered in accordance with rules and regulations without prejudice to the complainant.

If you believe the process was administered fairly and without prejudice, then only the Federal Court route is available.