Grievance Case Summary - G-706

The Grievor owned a house at her posting location. Her partner moved in with her in November 2010. In April 2011, the Grievor was notified of her transfer to another location. In June 2011, as part of the Grievor's relocation, she purchased a home at the new location with her partner, her share of the property amounting to 50%. Although the full expenses for the purchase of the new home were initially approved and reimbursed, the Grievor was later asked to repay her partner's share of those expenses. This is because under section 5.09 of the RCMP Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), only a portion of purchase expenses directly proportional to the member's legal share of the residence can be claimed if it is co-owned by a person who is not the member's common law spouse. The term "common law spouse" is defined in the IRP as someone who has continuously resided with the member in a conjugal relationship for at least one year prior to the transfer. The Grievor's partner did not meet this requirement.

The Grievor grieved the Force's request that her partner's portion of expenses be repaid. She claimed that she had been fully transparent with relocation personnel regarding her cohabitation situation. As a result of discussions with relocation personnel, she had purchased the home believing all expenses would be paid even though her partner had not lived with her for a full year prior to the relocation. The Grievor also argued that a Form she was required to fill out to report changes in cohabitation rendered the situation more confusing, and that she might have been entitled to the full expenses had it been filled out differently. She further asserted that she would incur financial hardship if forced to repay the amount. A Level I Adjudicator found that the expenses sought by the Grievor could only be paid if her partner was a common law spouse as defined in the IRP. Because this was not the case, the grievance was denied.

The ERC found that the Grievor was not entitled to the full reimbursement of expenses related to the purchase of the residence since it was co-owned by a person who was not the Grievor's common law spouse within the meaning of the IRP. While unfortunate that the Grievor may have been misinformed by relocation personnel, the provision of inaccurate information on its own did not make the Grievor eligible for a claim to which she was not otherwise entitled, nor did it negate her duty to familiarize herself with the IRP's provisions. The fact that the Grievor may have received incorrect information, and the financial hardship imposed by having to repay the amount, did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the strict application of the IRP's clear provisions.

The ERC also addressed the Grievor's argument that she would have had common-law status with her partner had she confirmed it on a standard RCMP personnel information Form prior to her transfer. The ERC disagreed. Even if the Grievor had indicated on the Form that she had begun a common law relationship with her partner in November 2010, this would not have created a common law relationship for the purpose of applying the IRPs provisions, as these clearly required one year of cohabitation prior to the transfer in April 2011.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner extend an apology to the Grievor, as she may have been given misleading information during the relocation process and was paid a significant sum in error.

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

The Grievor challenged the decision requiring her to reimburse the RCMP for one half of the expenses related to the purchase of her residence on relocation to her new post, co-owned with her partner, who at the time was not her "spouse", as defined by the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) policy, because their cohabitation was not yet one year. The Grievor argued that prior to the purchase, she notified the relocation advisor that she had not been residing with her partner for one year and they were not "common-law" and inquired if the full amount of the expenses would still be covered if they purchased the new property together. It is undisputed that the relocation advisor mistakenly reassured the Griever that the full amount of the expense of the joint purchase would be covered by the RCMP. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits. At Level II, the grievance was referred to the RCMP ERC, and the Chairperson recommended that even though the Grievor had likely been misinformed and was owed an apology, the grievance be dismissed since the Griever did not demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warranted the reimbursement. The Commissioner accepted that the Grievor relied on the relocation advisor's erroneous reassurance and did so to her detriment. The Commissioner found that in the circumstances the Respondent is estopped from enforcing the IRP policy and demanding recovery of the overpayment. The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor, and allowed the grievance.