Grievance Case Summary - G-422

The Grievor, while living in Montreal, was offered a position in Ottawa, which he accepted. He stored most of his household goods and personal effects at the residence of his then common-law spouse in Montreal and rented a room in Ottawa. Some time later, he was transferred to Montreal. His house-hunting trip (HHT) proved unsuccessful. As a result, he resided with his by then former common-law spouse for several months. He requested 21 days of interim lodging, meals and incidentals and sought to have his household goods and effects moved from storage in Montreal to his new principal residence. Both requests were denied.

The Committee found that the Grievor was entitled to be reimbursed for any costs incurred in moving personal effects from his principal residence at his old place of duty to his principal residence at his new place of duty, but this did not include the cost of moving the effects he had put into storage before moving to his old place of duty. The relocation policy did not allow for the RCMP to reimburse the Grievor for moving personal effects that were located somewhere other than his principal residence. The Committee also found that the Grievor was entitled to be reimbursed for interim lodging, meals and incidentals, with the amount still to be decided. He could not be considered to be living in his principal residence in his new place of duty, even though he was living with his ex-spouse in her apartment while waiting to move into his new residence. In addition, his personal effects were necessarily unaccessible to him since they were stored in boxes in the basement. There was some debate in the file over whether the Grievor was still in his common-law relationship when he moved back to Montreal from Ottawa. The Committee found that this factor was not relevant for the purposes of this grievance.

The Committee recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance in part.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner agrees with the ERC, which found that although the Grievor's effects were at the same address, he could not use them because they were stored in boxes. Therefore, he did not have access to them within the meaning of section 4.01 of the IRP. The Commissioner further agrees with the ERC, which considered that the apartment on [name] Street was not the Grievor's new "principal residence." The IRP defines new principal residence as "a single-family dwelling purchased or rented at the new place of duty which will become the employee's principal residence following the relocation." According to the ERC and the Commissioner, the Grievor did not find his new principal residence until March 2003 and did not move in it until June 2003. He was therefore entitled to the interim lodgings, meals and incidentals allowance under the terms of section 4.18 of the IRP, which provides for the payment of that allowance for a maximum of 21 days (with certain exceptions) "when interim accommodation is the result of a decision to await occupancy of a certain type of permanent accommodation even though there is other suitable accommodation available."

The Commissioner found that the Grievor is entitled to be reimbursed for interim lodgings, meals and incidentals for the days following his relocation to [city], while he was living in the apartment on [name] Street.

On September 12, 2011, the Commissioner agreed to award the Grievor a sum of money representing reimbursement for 21 days of interim lodgings, meals and incidentals for the period from February 5 to 26, 2003.

Consequently, the Commissioner allowed the grievance.