# 2021-298 Pay and Benefits, Occupancy agreement for government housing

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-03-16

The grievor contested the decision of the Canadian Forces Housing Authority to deny an adjustment to his rental charges for his government housing unit, similar to what is stipulated at paragraph 6.7.1 of the National Joint Council Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive (NJC IPGHD). The grievor alleged that because he is single and the only government houses available were family-sized, he should have received an adjustment to compensate for the higher cost of his residence. The grievor believed that the occupancy agreement that he signed should be treated as a written agreement between himself and the Government of Canada and that it should take precedence over other regulations. The grievor argued that providing a lesser wage while charging the same rent than another member with dependants occupying an identical rental unit, constitutes discrimination based on family status.

The Initial Authority (IA) indicated that the NJC IPGHD excludes the grievor because he is a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member, even though several CAF policies refer to it. The IA acknowledged that the occupancy agreement the grievor signed was confusing because Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) uses the same form for CAF members as for Public Servants but indicated that the agreement only defines the conditions of occupancy and makes no mention of a financial agreement. The IA stated that the Department of National Defence Living Accommodation Instruction (DND LAI) and Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5024-0 were developed in accordance with the guidance issued by the Treasury Board and are valid documents for CAF members; as such there is no absolute requirement to follow the provisions established by the NJC IPGHD. The IA confirmed that shelter charges are based on the housing unit size and not on the family size.

The Committee found that the NJC IPGHD clearly excludes CAF members. Therefore, the rent reduction set out in the NJC IPGHD does not apply to CAF members. That being said, the Committee acknowledged that cross-referencing the NJC IPGHD in the DND LAI, as well as other policy instruments, is erroneous and leads to confusion. The Committee noted that the grievor was not ordered into the PSPC-owned dwelling and had the option of choosing another one that would more adequately suit his spatial needs. In reviewing the occupancy agreement provided to, and signed by the grievor, the Committee found that it was misleading and inaccurate for CAF members. Further, the Committee opined that it should not be the occupancy agreement used for CAF members as it can easily lead readers to good faith conclusions that housing benefits for CAF members are contained in the NJC IPGHD. In this regard, the Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved to the extent that the occupancy agreement was misleading and inaccurate and caused the grievor confusion and distress. Regarding the validity of the occupancy agreement as a contract, the Committee found that the occupancy agreement was valid, and that those provisions which do not apply to CAF members, are severable. With regard to the grievor's claim that he was discriminated against on the basis of family status, the Committee found that the distinction was a function of employment status, not family status as it reflects different approaches to terms of employment and compensation packages. As such, this does not trigger the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act as employment status is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.