Grievance Case Summary - G-503

The Grievor was a Newly Engaged Member (NEM) having completed his training at "Depot" Division. He was relocated and purchased a home in his new community. He requested that his house purchase legal fees be paid by the Force, even though such fees could only be reimbursed under "exceptional circumstances" pursuant to the applicable policy. According to the Grievor, the fact that no rental housing was available in his new community amounted to an "exceptional circumstance" justifying the reimbursement of his house purchase legal fees. The Respondent denied his request, finding that his situation was not exceptional. The Grievor presented his grievance with respect to the denial of legal fees. His grievance also included a request for the reimbursement of other fees which had not been included in his original claim.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not been aggrieved by having to purchase a home rather than rent one. As for the other fees requested in the grievance, they could not be grieved as they had not been put to the Respondent for a decision. The Grievor presented his grievance at Level II.

The grievance was referable to the ERC under s.s. 36(d) of the RCMP Regulations. As for the subject of the grievance, the ERC concluded that only the request for legal fees could be dealt with, as that was how the Grievor had framed his original request.

The Respondent's response to the Grievor's request for reimbursement was problematic. The ERC found that comments made by the Respondent, as well as the absence of reasons for denying the Grievor's request, left the impression that the Respondent had not considered the request with an open mind. Further, the manner in which the Grievor's request was processed left it unclear whether or not the Grievor had a full opportunity to present relevant information.

As for the validity of the Grievor's claim, the ERC found that it was indeed exceptional, within the meaning of applicable policy, for the Grievor to find himself in a community where his only option was to purchase a residence.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP allow the grievance, reconsider the Grievor's request, find that his situation was exceptional, and order that he be reimbursed for the house purchase legal fees he incurred.

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

The Commissioner allowed the grievance in part.

Subject of the grievance

The Commissioner accepted that the Grievor's use of the expression “legal fees” in his request for reimbursement encompassed claims for the property transfer tax and home inspection fees, and therefore that the grievance included those claims as well. The Commissioner concluded that the Grievor was not given a proper chance to present his request for reimbursement. As a result, the Grievor was not given the opportunity to clarify what he meant by “legal fees” in his request, which may very well have included the fees paid for the home inspection and the property transfer tax. The Commissioner found that a broad and generous interpretation of the scope of the grievance was warranted and that, in addition to the claim for legal fees, the grievance also included claims for the property transfer tax and home inspection fees.

Erroneous findings at Level I

One of the Level I Adjudicator's reasons for denying the grievance was that the Grievor had requested the reimbursement of the legal fees three months after arriving at his posting, and shortly before his house purchase was concluded. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the timing of the Grievor's request was not relevant in terms of the merits of the grievance.

Furthermore, like the ERC, the Commissioner disagreed with the Level I Adjudicator's conclusion that the Grievor was not aggrieved financially because there was no evidence that the costs incurred to buy his home exceeded the cost of renting in the area. The Commissioner noted that the house purchase involved costs that the Grievor would not have had to pay if he had rented, such as the legal fees, the property transfer tax and the home inspection fees.

Merits of the grievance

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's conclusion that the Respondent's response to the Grievor's request for reimbursement was insufficient. The Commissioner found the Respondent's decision to be poorly explained and justified. The Commissioner noted that if the applicable policy had been followed properly, the Grievor would have been directed to the Commanding Officer (CO) of “Depot” Division (or the CO's delegate) when he first inquired about where to send his request for reimbursement, and perhaps he would have been better able to present his request. Like the ERC, the Commissioner was troubled that despite the clear wording in the applicable policy giving the CO of “Depot” Division/delegate the authority to approve the payment requested by the Grievor, the Respondent (seemingly the CO's delegate) disputed this authority in her decision.

Given the Respondent's improper handling of the Grievor's request for reimbursement, the Commissioner directed that the matter be returned to the CO of “Depot” Division/delegate for reconsideration. The Grievor was to be provided with the opportunity to present his request with full documentation and explanation, as contemplated by the applicable policy.