Grievance Case Summary - G-544

The Grievor and his family resided in a house (original home). They had, however, decided to sell the original home and move into a larger one (new home). The new home construction began in January 2009 and the Grievor and his wife placed the original home for sale. On April 30, 2009, the Grievor applied for a new position at a new place of work. The Grievor's original home was sold on May 20, 2009, but, he and his dependents continued to live in it as they awaited completion of the new home. A purchase agreement for the new home was signed on May 24, 2009. On May 25, 2009, a Transfer Notice Form (A-22A) was issued advising the Grievor that he had been selected for the new position. The A-22A was issued as a “no-cost move” by the Respondent, because the Grievor was residing in the original home at the time of its issuance and that home was less than 40 kms from his new place of work. The Grievor asked that his new home, situated 48.1 kms from his new place of work, be considered his principal residence, since he had purchased it before the A-22A was issued. He believed that he should be entitled to a Crown-paid relocation from the new home upon its eventual sale. The Respondent advised the Grievor that his original home would be classified as his principal residence, since he was residing in that home at the time of his transfer, and as a result, his transfer was a “no-cost move”.

The Grievor grieved the decision to deny him a cost move from the new home upon its eventual sale. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. He found that because the Grievor was not occupying the new home prior to the date of the A-22A, the original home was his principal residence, and the Integrated Relocation Program did not provide for him to have a Crown-paid relocation from it given that it was less than 40 kilometers from his new place of work.

IRP 3.03.1.b. allowed benefits to flow with respect to the sale of a residence which had been purchased by the member but was not occupied due to terms of a purchase agreement or exceptional circumstances beyond the member's control. Under that provision, the Grievor needed to show that he had 'purchased the residence' within the last six months with the intention of living in it, but had not yet taken possession of it due to circumstances beyond his control. The date of purchase, according to IRP 1.10, was the date where all conditions in a purchase agreement had been met. Although the Grievor and his wife had signed an agreement to purchase the new home before the A-22A was issued, the Grievor had not established, as he was required to, that all of the conditions in the purchase agreement had been met prior to issuance of the A-22A.

However, the ERC found that the Grievor's unique situation met the definition of exceptional circumstances as described in the IRP, and that the Force should have requested the approval of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) to authorize his relocation benefits. There appeared to be a significant detrimental impact on the Grievor and his family given that they were not being accorded IRP benefits even though the home they were committed to moving into before the issuance of the A-22A was over 40 kms away from the Grievor's new place of work. There was a clear intent on the Grievor's part to sell the original home and move into the new one approximately two months before the Grievor was advised that he had been identified as a candidate for the new position. The move into the new home was imminent at the time of the transfer.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP order a review of the Grievor's case to determine whether the Grievor still wished to pursue a submission requesting TBS approval for a Crown-paid relocation from the new home. If that is the case, the ERC recommends that the review also include the preparation of a submission requesting TBS approval for a Crown-paid relocation.

The ERC observed that TBS approval for a Crown-paid relocation might no longer be feasible if, for example, the Grievor has been re-posted and no move from the new home had ever taken place. In such a case, the ERC recommended that an apology be issued to the Grievor for the Force's decision not to request reimbursement on an exceptional basis.

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

The Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the RCMP External Review Committee and allowed the grievance.

The Commissioner found that, in this case, benefits could arise under the Integrated Relocation Program with respect to the sale of a residence which had been purchased, but was not yet occupied, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the member's control. The Grievor was therefore entitled to a consideration of the reimbursement of his relocation expenses. The Commissioner directed that a review of the Grievor's case be conducted to determine whether, at this point, the Grievor wished to pursue a submission requesting TBS approval for a Crown-paid relocation from the new home. Should a submission to TBS no longer be feasible (if, for example, the Grievor was re-posted and no move from the new home ever took place), the Commissioner stated that he would like to issue an apology to the Grievor for the Force's decision not to request reimbursement on an exceptional basis at the relevant time.