Grievance Case Summary - G-373

In 2004, the Grievor began experiencing significant health problems and was diagnosed with a rare and serious lung disease. Sometime around March of 2005, the Grievor requested a Force paid retirement relocation to a new place of residence that was within 40 km of his current residence. While ordinarily a retirement move must be a minimum distance of 40 km, his request was based on the "exceptional circumstances" exception found in the Force policy on retirement moves. The Grievor argued his health made it impossible for him to maintain his home, that it was necessary that he have access to public transportation and that he needed to be closer to medical care. His need to move was supported by his doctors and an RCMP Health Services Officer (HSO), who also referred to the fact that a lower pollution environment was being sought.

The request was denied on March 18, 2005. The Respondent acknowledged the Grievor's medical condition and his need to move from his current residence. He rejected the argument that the Grievor could only move to a specific part of a certain city to avoid pollutants. He found that there was no evidence of financial hardship and also found that the medical condition did not arise from the Grievor's employment with the RCMP. As a result, the Respondent concluded that the case did not meet the threshold for finding that exceptional circumstances existed. The Level I Adjudicator agreed.

The Committee dealt with this grievance on an expedited basis in consideration of the Grievor's medical condition and the link between the medical condition and the subject of the grievance.

The Committee concluded that the exceptional circumstances that would justify the Force paying for a retirement move of less than 40 km would be factors that showed that for exceptional reasons outside of his or her control, the member could not stay in the residence of his last posting, even though his desired retirement location was within 40 km.

The Committee concluded that the Grievor had demonstrated exceptional reasons. Because of a serious respiratory medical condition for which the cause was unknown, the Grievor was required to move to another part of the same community in order to have access to public transportation and to be closer to his medical specialist and the hospital. At the same time, this move would allow him to relocate to a residence that would be easier to maintain, given his physical limitations. Further, the Committee concluded that the Level I Adjudicator erred in rejecting the HSO's statement that the proposed move would help as it would be to a location with less pollution. Finally, the move as requested would not result in personal gain, and did not appear to be an extravagance.

The grievance should be allowed. If the Grievor has already moved, the Committee recommends that the Commissioner order that he be reimbursed for the retirement move. If the Grievor has not yet moved, the Committee recommends that the Commissioner order that the retirement relocation provisions of the RCMP IRP and the TB-IRP 2003 be available to the Grievor for two years from the date of the Commissioner's decision.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the Respondent relied upon a version of the policy that was not yet in effect at the relevant time. Accordingly, there was no requirement to obtain final approval from the Treasury Board on whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify reimbursing a retirement move of less than 40 km. That discretionary decision was in fact the Respondent's to make. While the Respondent applied the wrong policy, the Commissioner ruled that he was still correct not to seek the approval of the Treasury Board after concluding that the Grievor had not demonstrated that there were "exceptional circumstances" justifying the reimbursement of his move within 40 km. The RCMP IRP 2003 policy indicated that it was up to the Commissioner, or his delegate, to determine in each case whether there were exceptional circumstances. The Respondent, who had the authority to define exceptional circumstances, concluded that there were none in the present grievance. His decision was made in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and did not rely on irrelevant considerations.

Accordingly, the Grievor did not qualify for the reimbursement of a local move, and the grievance was denied.