Grievance Case Summary - G-254

The Grievor was notified that he was being transferred. At the time, he owned a residence and expressed an interest in having the residence sold through the Guaranteed Home Sales Plan (GHSP). As arranged by the GHSP coordinator, two appraisals of the Grievor's home were conducted in April 1998 and both independently arrived at the same market value estimate for the property, $105,000.00. Following that, two inspections were carried on the Grievor's home which revealed problems with the pilings and the foundation. As a result, it was recommended that the residence not be accepted into the GHSP because it would be a high risk to the Crown. Therefore, the Grievor decided to have his home repaired. Once the repairs were done, the marketing period had passed and two new appraisals were prepared on the Grievor's home. Both appraisals noted that there had been a significant drop in the property's market value and the GHSP price offered to the Grievor was $91,750.00 which was accepted by him four days later. The Grievor filed a grievance against the decision not to admit his home into the GHSP and the decision to order that new appraisals be conducted.

The Level I adjudicator found that the decisions which the Grievor was challenging had not been made "in the administration of the affairs of the Force" but rather as a result of the requirement to adhere to Treasury Board Guidelines. The Level I adjudicator concluded that they were not grievable.

On February 16, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that both decisions were clearly made "in the administration of the affairs of the Force" because the decisions challenged by the Grievor were not ones made by Treasury Board but rather by the RCMP. Concerning the first decision, however, the Committee found that the Grievor failed to act within the 30 day period during which he could challenge the decision. Concerning the second decision, the Committee found that the RCMP was justified in ordering that new appraisals be conducted. The circumstances that led to the delay, as unfortunate as they were, could not be considered in setting the GHSP price. The GHSP price that the Grievor was offered reflected the market value of the property at the time as established by the two appraisals. The Committee indicated that the RCMP acted responsibly throughout the five-month period between the time of the initial appraisals and the time that the Grievor was finally offered the GHSP price. In addition, the Committee found that there is likely no basis upon which the Force could consider offering compensation to the Grievor for his financial losses.

On March 23, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Acting Commissioner concurred with the External Review Committee that the grieved decisions were made in the administration of the affairs of the Force and that the Grievor had standing. On the issue of time limits, he found that the grievance against the decision not to admit the Grievor into the GHSP in May 1999 was filed outside the 30-day time limit at Level I, but the Grievor respected the time limit on grieving the decision on the GHSP based on new appraisals.

The Acting Commissioner found that the decision to base the GHSP price on the second set of appraisals was justified. He also found no wrongdoing on the part of the Force for which the Grievor should be compensated. The grievance was denied.