Grievance Case Summary - G-677

The Grievor purchased land near a post to which he would soon be relocated. He decided that he wished to live on the land, in a new home, the construction of which he would oversee as the general contractor. He formally requested a House Hunting Trip (HHT) beginning on the date construction was scheduled to start, but was told that permission could not be given for reasons that seemed unfounded and at odds with earlier advice he received. He took the trip, anyway.

A relocation official later sent the Respondent a Business Case in support of the Grievor’s trip being approved as an HHT under the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) Policy, which in turn would render the Grievor eligible for a reimbursement of certain costs incurred on his trip. The Business Case suggested the Grievor had needed to book contractors and tradespeople to help him build his home. However, the only evidence in the record that shed any light on what occurred during the trip included notes and an invoice indicating that his land was excavated.

The Respondent rejected the Business Case on the basis that the Grievor was ineligible for an HHT, as he had already secured a permanent accommodation at his new post by the time of his trip, by way of buying his land and obtaining a building permit based on final plans. The Grievor presented a grievance, which was denied on its merits by a Level I Adjudicator. The Grievor then resubmitted his grievance at Level II and it was subsequently referred to the ERC.

The ERC found that the key question in the grievance was: what did the Grievor do on his trip? Unfortunately, there was little evidence in the record to help answer this question. The ERC signaled a willingness to accept that, when read together, certain sections of the IRP could be construed as permitting a relocating member to take an HHT for the purpose of making inquiries of and/or booking tradespeople to help build a home for which s/he was the contractor.

However, there was no evidence, other than insinuations in a Business Case, that the Grievor used his trip to canvass or book trades. Again, the only evidence in the record illuminating what took place during the Grievor’s trip was some notes and an invoice indicating that his land was excavated. That evidence did not show that the Grievor canvassed or booked trades during his trip. At best, it implied that he supervised the breaking of ground on his land. A plain reading of the IRP suggested that this was not an appropriate rationale for an HHT, as it did not involve a measure that was taken to secure a home, or to secure the means necessary to build a home.

The ERC was left with the facts that the Grievor took a trip for which he did not have permission, to perform alleged tasks that were neither clearly defined nor substantiated by evidence. In light of those gaps, it concluded that he had not satisfied his burden of persuasion in establishing that he was entitled to an HHT, or to a reimbursement of HHT-related expenses, under the IRP.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Departmental National Coordinator (DNC), Integrated Relocation Program, to deny approval for a House Hunting Trip (HHT) during a relocation, rendering the Grievor ineligible for the reimbursement of unspecified expenses. At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not obtained authorization for his trip and that he had already secured accommodations at the new post. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that the Grievor failed to satisfy his burden of persuasion in establishing his entitlement to a HHT and related benefits. The Commissioner allows the grievance, finding that authorization for the HHT should not have been withheld.