Grievance Case Summary - G-345

The Grievor was transferred from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick in the spring of 2000. He signed the agreement to enter into the Integrated Relocation Program on April 14, 2000 and he sold his house on July 7, 2000. The Grievor claimed that an RLRS representative advised him to accept the offer he had received for his house, even though it was less than the original purchase price plus capital improvements. The Grievor stated that the RLRS representative failed to inform him that the capital improvements losses were to be paid from the Customized envelope. As this envelope was mostly funded from his transfer allowance, he objected to what he characterized as paying a relocation expense from his own money. He stated that he would not have accepted the offer on his home had he been told that the capital improvement losses were to be paid from the Customized envelope.

The Grievor's argument is based on the assumption that he would have been able to receive an offer on his house that would have covered the purchase price plus the full amount of capital improvements, leaving him with no losses. This is speculative and on the basis of the record it is not possible to determine how reasonable this assumption would be. As well, the Grievor has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the RLRS representative gave him advice that was contrary to the Integrated Relocation Program - Pilot - effective April 1, 2000 ("IRP (April 2000)" ). The Grievor gives different versions of what he was told, and it is not clear exactly what the RLRS representative did or did not say. Furthermore, even if the RLRS representative had specifically told him that none of the loss would be reimbursed from the Customized component, the IRP (April 2000) required that the Grievor ask for clarification, "because expenses resulting from misinterpretation or mistakes will not necessarily be reimbursable." The Committee also found that it could not make a recommendation for an ex gratia payment, because the terms of the Treasury Board policy on ex gratia payments specifically precluded such an option. In any event, even if possible for relocation expenses, the Committee would not recommend this in the present case, because it finds that the Grievor has not proven that he received bad advice.

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor had not been misled or prejudiced by the representations made by Royal LePage Relocation Service with respect to the source of funding for payment of the capital improvements to his residence. The Commissioner held that, given the written and verbal information supplied by Royal LePage Relocation Services and the Respondent, the Grievor should have known that the capital improvements would be funded by the Enhanced Core and Customized envelopes. The Commissioner denied the grievance.