# 2013-060 Others, Married Quarters (MQ)
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–08–29
The grievor, who resided in government row housing, complained he and his family were victims of second-hand smoke migration from the adjoining townhouse that he believed to share a common air exchange with his unit. The grievor argued that the second-hand cigarette smoke was a matter of health and safety and suggested that the Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA) had a responsibility to deal with the issue. In his grievance, the grievor proposed three possible solutions to the issue: implementing a no smoking policy, repairing the defective structural /mechanical ventilation issue or relocating the grievor and his family to another suitable dwelling.
As the Initial Authority (IA) for the grievance, the Chief of Staff, Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment) at National Defence Headquarters denied the grievance finding that the immediate issue of smoke migration had been alleviated as the grievor's neighbour had vacated the adjoining unit. In his decision, the IA pointed out that the grievor resided in government owned housing that was controlled by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and occupants were permitted to smoke in their respective residences. Further, he did not support the implementation of a non-smoking policy unless it applied to all government departments utilizing the housing complex. Referencing the report of a consultant engaged by PWGSC, the IA noted the consultant's advice that there might be ways to mitigate air flow but there were no “definitive fixes”. Nonetheless, the IA requested that CFHA work with PWGSC to address any identified deficiencies specified in the report. The IA acknowledged it was unfortunate the grievor had, at one point, been offered and accepted alternate housing which could not ultimately be included in the CFHA housing portfolio, however, he pointed out that the grievor was subsequently offered a number of other possible residential units. Despite this offer, the grievor had taken the view that in the absence of being offered a single dwelling he did not wish to move as he could not be assured a smoker would not reside next door to him. The IA noted there were no single dwelling units currently available and there was no guarantee that one would be available in future.
The Committee agreed with the IA that the issue of exposure to second-hand smoke was now moot as the grievor's smoking neighbour had moved out. While it was true that another smoker could still move in next door, this was purely hypothetical at the moment. Although the Committee agreed with the grievor that the CF had an obligation to ensure that members were provided safe and secure government owned accommodations, the Committee found it reasonable that CFHA could not supply the grievor with a single detached dwelling given the lack of housing options available to it. Agreeing with the IA, the Committee found that a non-smoking policy was not a plausible solution in the absence of a consensus from all involved government departments. In terms of repairs, the Committee noted that it appeared efforts would be made to correct the ventilation system based on the consultant's report and recommended the CF informally facilitate the grievor's access to said report.
The Committee recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–19
The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and denied redress.
Page details
- Date modified: