Grievance Case Summary - G-615

In 2003, the Grievor registered with the Force's relocation services provider, Royal LePage. During his relocation process, he incurred and was reimbursed for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) fees. In April 2004, Royal LePage advised the Grievor that they had erroneously reimbursed the CMHC fees and sent a recovery letter to the Grievor. Between 2004 and 2007, Royal LePage made unsuccessful attempts to recover the monies. In December 2007, Royal LePage transferred the recovery efforts to the RCMP. The RCMP continued recovery efforts, eventually advising the Grievor that collection procedures would be initiated if payment was not received by September 25, 2009.

On October 29, 2010 the RCMP Corporate Management Branch advised the Grievor that they would be recouping the CMHC fees by garnishing the Grievor's future expense claims and/or income. On November 16, 2010, the Grievor presented a grievance stating that he was grieving the October 29, 2010 decision of the Officer in Charge, Travel and Relocation Programs (Respondent), to “retrieve monies allegedly owed, as a result of a decision made by Royal Lepage”.

The Respondent challenged the timeliness of the grievance presentation, arguing that the Grievor ought to have known in April 2004 of the decision to recoup the monies. The Grievor argued that, although he knew in 2004 of Royal LePage's decision to recover the CMHC fees, at that time the dispute was solely between himself and Royal LePage. In addition, he could not have presented his grievance until he was actually aggrieved, which was not until he was advised by the Corporate Management Branch on October 29, 2010 of the garnishment proceedings.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis that it had not been presented in time. The Adjudicator found that the Grievor knew or ought to have known of the RCMP's decision to recoup the monies when he was put on notice that collection procedures would be initiated if payment was not received. Therefore, the Grievor knew he was aggrieved before September 25, 2009, however, he did not present his grievance until November 2010.

In his Level II timeliness submissions, the Grievor argued that he was not aggrieved by the decision to recover the CMHC fees but by the October 29, 2010 act advising him that his income would be subject to garnishment.

The ERC stated that the Grievor's Level I and II timeliness submissions sought to alter the subject matter of the grievance in order to support the argument that the grievance was timely. The ERC found that the subject matter of the grievance was that identified by the contents of the Grievor's Form 3081 and Appendix, namely, Royal LePage's 2004 decision to recover the CMHC fees.

The ERC confirmed that a grievor is aggrieved when they know or ought to know that their rights or interests are at stake. The ERC found that, based on the Grievor's own submissions, he knew or ought to have known that he was aggrieved in 2004 when the decision to recover the monies was first communicated to him. The fact that the Grievor chose to ignore the increasing efforts of the Force to recoup the fees did not alter the decision being grieved or the date on which he knew or ought to have known he was aggrieved. Advising the Grievor of garnishment proceedings did not give rise to a new right to grieve, but simply confirmed or implemented the previous decision. The Grievor knew as early as April 2004, and certainly no later than September 25, 2009, that he was aggrieved. He did not present his grievance until November 2010. Therefore, the grievance was not presented in time at Level I.

The ERC further found that there was no justification to recommend that the Commissioner retroactively extend the Level I time limit and consider the merits of the grievance. The Grievor had no intention of presenting the grievance within 30 days of being aggrieved, he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay, and the delay was not caused by the Force.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner of the RCMP deny the grievance on the basis that it was not presented in time at Level I.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Grievor presented a grievance after being advised that he had been over-reimbursed for expenses during his relocation in 2003. The Respondent challenged the time limitation period in which the Grievor presented his grievance. The Grievor contends that he was not aggrieved by the initial decision to recover the allegedly owed funds but rather by the decision by the Force to initiate garnishment proceedings. The Grievor argues that his grievance was presented within 30 days of learning of the garnishment decision. Level I denied the grievance. The Commissioner accepts the ERC's findings that the Grievor knew or ought to have known that he was aggrieved when the initial decision to recover the fees was made in 2004. The grievance was presented in 2010 and therefore, was not presented within the time limitation period prescribed by the Act. The Commissioner also accepts the ERC's recommendation that an extension of time to file the present grievance pursuant to s. 47.4(1) of the Act should not be granted in the circumstances. The grievance is denied.