Grievance Case Summary - G-608

The Grievor retired from the RCMP on April 3, 2007. He indicated that he wished to make a retirement relocation from the Vancouver area to Nova Scotia. The RCMP agreed that the Grievor was eligible for the retirement relocation, within the period set out in section 14.01.4 of the 2007 RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (2007 IRP). Section 14.01.4 of the 2007 IRP stipulated:

Shortly after the Grievor's retirement, his spouse developed medical issues that were suggestive of cancer. This necessitated a multi-year period of cancer testing which she preferred to undergo in the Vancouver area. The Grievor sought and received a one-year extension of the retirement relocation period, in light of exceptional medical circumstances. In 2009, after doctors indicated that the Grievor's spouse's tests had not revealed cancer, the Grievor began looking for a property in Nova Scotia. In March 2010, he was diagnosed with skin cancer. He asked for an extension of the retirement relocation period, beyond three-years of his date of retirement, so he could be treated in the Vancouver area. The Respondent refused, explaining that section 14.01.4 of the 2007 IRP prohibited such an extension. The Grievor recovered, then paid to move his family to Nova Scotia. Sadly, his spouse later died of complications arising from lymphoma and pneumonia.

The Grievor submitted a Level I grievance. During the early resolution phase, the Respondent attempted, without success, to have the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) further extend the Grievor's retirement relocation period. The Grievor subsequently questioned the quality of the Respondent's attempt. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits.

The ERC found that the interactions between the Respondent and the TBS were outside the scope of the grievance. Regarding the merits of the grievance, the ERC found that section 14.01.4 of the 2007 IRP applied to the grievance and, despite an omission or typographical error, the Respondent clearly based his decision on that provision. Section 14.01.4 of the 2007 IRP unambiguously prohibited the Respondent from extending the Grievor's retirement relocation period to a date beyond the three year anniversary of the Grievor's retirement date. In addition, the 2007 IRP did not require the Respondent to provide a business case to the TBS before making a decision. The Grievor failed to explain or show how the authorities upon which he relied supported his position.

The Grievor's circumstances are tragic. He and his family undoubtedly experienced serious upheaval following the Grievor's retirement from the RCMP. It is open to the Commissioner to consider examining the Grievor's eligibility to receive a grant to cover verifiable retirement relocation expenses from the RCMP Benefit Trust Fund, in lieu of an extension of the retirement relocation period.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that he deny the grievance.

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

The Grievor presented a grievance against the Respondent's decision to deny an extension of the retirement relocation period beyond three years following the Grievor's retirement date. The Commissioner accepted the ERC's findings that the Grievor's circumstances are tragic and compelling. Nevertheless, the Respondent's decision is consistent with the applicable policy as he did not have the authority to grant the extension request. The grievance is denied.

The Commissioner suggested the Grievor apply for a possible grant under the Benefit Trust Fund provisions in order to recover what would have been otherwise standard eligible retirement relocation expenses.