Grievance Case Summary - G-264

In 1994, the Grievor was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while on duty. In 1996, the Grievor's physician recommended that he use a hot tub on an ongoing basis as part of his rehabilitation. The Force agreed to pay the cost of installing the hot tub at the Grievor's home. In 1999, the Grievor requested that the Force pay for expenses that he had incurred in order to be able to use the hot tub at his home. This request for denied.

The Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") recommended that the grievance be denied, saying that the Force medical benefits package does not contain any provision allowing for the payment and installation of a hot tub in member's home and because it considered that the Force did not have the financial authority to pay expenses of this nature.

The Level I adjudicator agreed with the GAB's rationale and denied the grievance.

On October 12, 2001, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee first determined that the grievance was referable, as part of the category described by paragraph 36(a) of the Regulations, as it could be seen as pertaining to some extent to the application of health and safety policy established by Treasury Board for all government departments, including the Force. That policy requires that the Force establish and maintain effective occupational safety and health (OSH) programs consistent with Treasury Board policies, standards and procedures.

On the merits of the grievance, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. The Committee concluded that, while the Grievor was not using his hot tub for his personal enjoyment but rather for the purpose of accelerating his recovery from the injuries, he had no entitlement to the Force paying for the cost and installation of the hot tub or for associated maintenance costs. The fact that the Force had agreed to pay for the hot tub did not create an obligation upon the Force to pay for costs associated with it.

The Committee noted the Grievor's concern in relation to the length of time required to review the grievance but indicated that it appeared that the delay was attributable to the fact that the composition of the GAB had to be changed.

On December 5, 2001, the Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed that the grievance be denied for the reasons stated by the External Review Committee.