# 2015-115 - Accommodation, Remission

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–02–10

The grievor's basic occupational training, which is offered only once a year, was ceased due to an injury. He requested to vacate single quarters and cease paying for rations, indicating that until his training could restart, he would be living in an apartment outside the base. The training establishment rejected his request, as they believed that it would change the grievor's status and would obliged them to pay for rations once the grievor would resume his training and be ordered to occupy single quarters again. The grievor moved out of the training facilities at his own expenses and submitted two more requests to cease paying for quarters and rations he was not using, but the training establishment rejected them for the same financial concern. The grievor later resumed training, which was ceased again due to his injury. He submitted a fourth request, which was finally approved by the new commandant of the training establishment. The grievor contested the first three denials, arguing that it had been unreasonable to force him to pay for quarters he was not using and for meals he was not consuming. He acknowledged that he would be expected to occupy single quarters while on training and pay these charges. However, he submitted that for the periods during which he was unable to train due to injury, he should be allowed to live elsewhere and not be charged for rations and quarters.

The Committee concluded that, while there was a bona fide requirement for the grievor to occupy single quarters when on training, such requirement did not exist when he was awaiting training. The Committee noted that the grievor was posted with the move of his household good and effects being prohibited. As such, the training establishment's belief that they would be financially liable to pay for rations and quarters once the grievor was ordered to reoccupy quarters on resumption of his training was a misinterpretation of the applicable policy. The Committee concluded that it was unreasonable for the training establishment, looking to avoid an impact on its budget, to expect a new enrollee to pay a considerable amount of charges for services he was not using, particularly given the misinterpretation of policy.

With regards to rations, the Committee considered that the grievor made the case that he was not consuming his meals on base. Therefore, the Committee concluded that it was unreasonable to have expected him to pay for a service he clearly did not intend to use.

The Committee recommended that the CDS remits charges for rations and quarters.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed, but was satisfied that it was unnecessary to use his powers under QR&O 208.52 to remit both the grievor's rations and quarters for the periods in question. The CDS simply directed that the funds the grievor spent on the services be refunded to him.