Grievance Case Summary - G-232

The Grievor was transferred and entered into the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP). The GHSP price was substantially lower than the cost of his house. As a result, he applied under the Home Equity Assistance Plan (HEAP) for compensation for the loss. His application was rejected due to failure to establish the 10 percent market decline criterion necessary for HEAP eligibility. The two appraisers commissioned by the Force were of the opinion that there had been no decline in the residential real estate market in the town where the Grievor lived.

The Grievor submitted a grievance against the rejection of his application for compensation under the HEAP. The Force received the grievance nine months after the Grievor signed it. During the 30-day time period for presentation of Level I grievances, the Grievor had sent the signed grievance form to a Division Staff Relations Representative (DSRR) with whom he had been talking. He believed that the DSRR would take care of it. The DSRR later indicated that he may have given the Grievor that impression. The Grievor argued that there had been a 10 percent market decline and submitted two opinions from a top local real estate agent indicating such a decline and three examples of sales of comparable houses in the town which sold for at least 10 percent lower than the listing prices. He did not obtain his own appraisal. He also emphasized that the GHSP price had been much lower than the price he had paid to build the house and that the house had actually sold ten months later for an even lower price.

In response to the grievance, the Appropriate Officer reiterated that the requirement of a 10 percent market decline, as established by Treasury Board's Relocation Directive, had not been met in this case. The Grievance Advisory Board recommended that the grievance be denied because it had not been submitted to the Force within the statutory 30-day time limit. It did not believe that the DSRR had undertaken to forward the grievance to the proper recipients because if he had, he would have done so. On the merits, it found that the 10 percent criterion had not been met. The Level I adjudicator agreed and denied the grievance on the basis that it was not timely, and that the Grievor did not meet the HEAP eligibility criterion of a 10 percent market decline.

On July 14, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that the submission of the grievance to the DSRR did not constitute submission of the grievance to the Force, as contemplated by Force policy and therefore, the grievance presentation was not timely. The DSRR was not in the Grievor's chain of command and there is no evidence that DSRRs are responsible for initiating the grievance process on behalf of the Force. DSRRs are more akin to agents for aggrieved members when they agree to assist in the presentation of grievances. However, in view of the evidence of a misunderstanding between the Grievor and the DSRR regarding the presentation of the grievance, the Grievor should not be penalized for the fact that the DSRR did not present his grievance to the Force within the 30-day time limit. The circumstances in this case were exceptional and the Committee recommended that the Commissioner exercise the authority under subsection 47.4 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and extend the time limit for the Level I grievance so that it would be considered timely.

The Committee also found that the opinions of the two appraisers stating that there was no market decline in the relevant period could not be accepted because the opinions related to the residential real estate market for the whole town in which the Grievor lived and were not restricted to the market for comparable homes. The Committee also found that while the Grievor's evidence indicated that the market did decline, it was insufficient to establish a 10 percent market decline. A comparison of sale prices for homes similar to the Grievor's property and within the same vicinity over the relevant period would have been of more assistance in establishing the extent of the decline, in the absence of a new appraisal.

On the merits, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

On October 5, 1999, the Acting Commissioner Allen rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

In light of the miscommunication between the Grievor and the DSRR, the Commissioner granted the Grievor a time extension under subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act. As for the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and denied the grievance.