Grievance Case Summary - G-537

The community in which the Grievor served had a fragile economy. After learning that he had been accepted into a training course which could potentially lead to his transfer, the Grievor put his residence up for sale to “test the real estate market”, and a potential buyer showed interest. The Grievor then completed his training course, and asked the Respondent if he could sell his house given the uncertain economic status of his community. The Respondent told the Grievor that he could not receive relocation benefits if he sold his house before receiving his transfer notice. The Grievor then entered into an informal promise to buy with the potential buyer, and continued to enquire about whether he could get authorization to sell his property before receiving his transfer notice. The answer was always no. Shortly thereafter, the potential buyer withdrew his promise to buy. The Grievor subsequently received his transfer notice. Upon reviewing the RCMP Relocation Directive, he learned that policy allowed a member to sell their property prior to receiving a transfer notice in certain situations. The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent for providing him with erroneous information and, in the Grievor’s view, making him lose the sale of his house. At the time that the Level I Adjudicator made his decision, the Grievor had not yet sold his house, and he had not yet been transferred. The Level I Adjudicator allowed the grievance but stated that it was premature to assess the remedy. After being served with the Level I decision, the Grievor’s lawyer wrote to the Level I Adjudicator in an effort to resolve the matter, and the Grievor had various discussions with the OCG. Ultimately, the Grievor did not send his note requesting a Level II review until close to two months after the expiry of the 14-day time limit to do so.

The ERC’s decision focuses on whether the Grievor’s request for a retroactive extension of the Level II deadline should be granted. The ERC found that a retroactive extension was not warranted in this case, as the Grievor had missed the deadline by almost two months, and he had not been sufficiently diligent in pursuing his grievance. The ERC also made findings and recommendations on the merits of the grievance. The ERC acknowledged that the Grievor had received incorrect advice, but also highlighted that it was the Grievor’s decision to wait to sell his house, even though he knew that such a decision could adversely impact the sale price. Even if the Grievor had sold his house to the prospective buyer for the original amount, reimbursement of the relocation expenses would still not have been guaranteed, as entitlement was dependent on the subsequent transfer notice being issued within certain time frames set out in policy. At the time the Grievor received bad advice, there was not even confirmation that a transfer would take place at all. The ERC noted that the Grievor had recently sold his house for $25,000 less than the amount originally offered by the potential buyer. However, the ERC found that the payment of $25,000 to the Grievor was not an appropriate remedy, because it would put the Grievor in a better position than he would have been in had the Respondent properly advised him at the outset.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance given the Grievor's failure to meet the Level II time limit. It further recommended that if the merits were to be examined, the Grievor would not be entitled to the remedy he is seeking, although he may have been entitled to an apology by the Commissioner.

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

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner concurred with the ERC's conclusions and recommendations and denied the grievance.

As recommended by the ERC, the Commissioner denied the grievance on the grounds that it had been submitted at Level II outside the 14-day time limit prescribed in paragraph 31(2)(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10. The Commissioner refused to grant a retroactive extension of time since the Grievor had not been sufficiently diligent in pursuing his grievance. The Grievor had been clearly advised by the Office for the Coordination of Grievances that he needed to submit his grievance within fourteen days after being served with the decision at Level I and that failure to respect this time limit would result in the grievance being denied without a review of its merits. Despite this clear warning, the time limit was exceeded by about two months.

Since the ERC had made findings on the merits of the grievance, the Commissioner saw fit to do likewise. The Commissioner indicated that he agreed with the Level I Adjudicator that the Respondent's action, which was being grieved, had been clearly established. The Respondent acknowledged having misinformed the Grievor and admitted she was unaware of the provisions of the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) which allow the sale of a house before a Transfer Notice has been issued. The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor on behalf of the RCMP for the Respondent's mistake.

The Commissioner added, however, that the Respondent's mistake did not relieve the Grievor of all responsibility, since he also had not consulted the Relocation Policy and the IRP in the Financial Management Manual. The Commissioner pointed out that it has been clearly established in a number of adjudication decisions concerning RCMP grievances that members have a duty to familiarize themselves with the policies governing them and to ask for a written interpretation or clarification when there is doubt about their meaning.

For the reasons outlined by the ERC, the Commissioner concluded that the Grievor was not entitled to the redress sought in his grievance.

Finally, the Commissioner commented on perceived failures in the matter of the Grievor's right to receive communications concerning the handling of his grievance in the language of his choice, in this case French. The Commissioner emphasized that grievors are entitled to the same quality and speed of service in the handling of their grievances, whether they choose to proceed in French or in English.