Grievance Case Summary - G-364

The Grievor was transferred but was unable to find suitable housing during his house hunting trip. He reported back to the Respondent, a relocation specialist, that he anticipated moving into rental housing on a Canadian Forces base in December. The Respondent gave approval for the Grievor to proceed to Ottawa and to be reimbursed for interim lodging meals and incidental ( ILM&I) for 21 days. The Grievor arrived in early November and stayed in a hotel.

In mid-November, the Grievor requested an extension to the interim accommodation approval, indicating "I won't be in the rental house on base until the new year". The Respondent requested more information on when he would be taking possession of the rental unit. When the Grievor could not give her an exact date, the Respondent contacted the base housing office directly. She was told that the Grievor had not submitted an application form and there was no housing lined up for him. She was also told that base housing had been available since the summer.

After various exchanges, the Grievor told the Respondent that housing was available, but that the person who was to be his roommate was not arriving until December. The Respondent advised that because a house was available, the ILM&I would be discontinued in three days, which time represented the notice the movers required to deliver the Grievor's household goods and effects. Subsequently, the Respondent advised the Grievor that because a door-to-door move had been possible from the beginning, he would only be entitled to the standard five days of ILM&I for packing loading and cleaning and unloading and unpacking. The Grievor grieved, requesting reinstatement of the approval for 21-days of ILM&I.

The Committee found that the Grievor did not meet his obligations under the Integrated Relocation Program - Pilot to seek out and occupy self-contained accommodation as soon as possible. However, the only reason for revoking an approval for reimbursement after expenses had been incurred would be where the approval was obtained through intentional misrepresentation or fraud. The record did not permit the Committee to conclude that the Grievor was guilty of either. The Committee found that, while the Grievor was vague and inconsistent in his dealings with the Respondent and he was less than diligence in ensuring that he minimized the costs of the move, the evidence was not conclusive of an intention to mislead or defraud. The Committee added that the record did not confirm exactly what approval had been given or how that approval had been explained to the Grievor prior to his move.

The Committee concluded that the full 21 days of ILM&I should not have been revoked. Rather, the Grievor should have been reimbursed for the ILM&I expenses that he had incurred prior to the date on which it was established that a base house was available, plus an additional three days, the notice period that was required for the movers to deliver his household goods and effects.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be allowed in part.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Grievor was vague and inconsistent in his dealings with the Respondent. However, the record did not support the conclusion that the Grievor was guilty of intentional misrepresentation or fraud.

The Commissioner recommended a partial reimbursement of expenses already incurred in addition to expenses to cover the standard three-day notice period. This redress ensured that the Grievor was not "out of pocket" for the expenses he had incurred, while preventing him from profiting by obtaining reimbursement of all 21 days of expenses that were originally approved.

Accordingly, the Grievor is entitled to ILM&I benefits from November 6, 2002 (date of his arrival) to November 14, 2002 (date it was established that Base housing was available), plus an additional three (3) days to cover the notice period to the moving company.