Grievance Case Summary - G-392

The Grievor was transferred but he did not sell his residence upon relocation. Rather he took advantage of a provision that allowed him to retain his home for up to two years. He signed a "Retention of Principal Residence Agreement" in June 2003. The Agreement included the caveat "I have read and understand the provisions of Section 12, paragraph 12.05 of the RCMP-IRP [Integrated Relocation Program] Policy Document". That policy document limited the reimbursement of some expenses, including a limitation that real estate commissions would only be paid on the appraised value of the home at the date of transfer.

In May 2005, the Grievor enquired to ensure that he had the correct deadline for the sale of his home. At this time, his attention was drawn to the limitation with respect to the amount of real estate commissions that would be reimbursed. The Grievor sold his home on June 30, 2005 for in excess of the 2003 appraised value and the sale closed August 1, 2005. He received the statement of adjustments from his lawyer on August 6, 2005. The statement of adjustment indicated that a portion of the real estate commissions had not been reimbursed by the Force. He grieved on August 18, 2005, seeking reimbursement of the full real estate commissions.

The Level I Adjudicator concluded that the Grievor was informed in May 2005 that the reimbursement would be based on the 2003 appraised value of the home and therefore, the grievance was out of time.

The Grievor sought a Level II decision, arguing that since he had not sold his home for in excess of the 2003 appraised value in May 2005, at that point he had not been affected and that the triggering date was when he received the statement of adjustment as this was the date that he became aware of the actual refusal to reimburse the commissions.

The Committee found that the Grievor knew or ought to have known that the Force intended to limit his claim for reimbursement of real estate commissions to the appraised value at the time of the transfer when he signed the agreement in June 2003. Even if the 30-day time limit was reactivated in May 2005, the Grievor had failed to respect the statutory time limit because his grievance was not presented until August 2005.

The Committee recommends that the grievance be denied.

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

The Commissioner determined that the Grievor should have known on June 6, 2003, when he signed the Retention of Principal Residence, how much he would be reimbursed whenever he decided to sell his house. If the Grievor believed he was aggrieved by that amount, then he was aware of that fact on June 6, 2003. The Commissioner concluded that even assuming the Grievor realized that the 2003 appraisal would be used to calculate the reimbursement only after he was clearly advised of that fact in the e-mail dated May 19, 2005, the grievance presented on August 18, 2005, would still be untimely.

The Commissioner concurred with the ERC that the Grievor failed to respect the statutory time limit for presentation of the grievance at Level I and that in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for extending the time limit in accordance with section 47.4(1) of the Act. The grievance was therefore denied.