G-747 - Relocation

The Grievor's two relatives financially helped the Grievor buy a home at his post (home). The Grievor's relatives’ names were on the title and mortgage of the home. The Grievor's name was not. The RCMP later transferred the Grievor to another post. Upon consultation with the Relocation Contractor, the Grievor learned that he would be considered a renter instead of a homeowner, given that his name was not on the title or mortgage of the home. As a result, he would not be reimbursed home sale benefits that may otherwise have been payable to him under the Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP).

The Grievor presented a business case in which he asked to be deemed a homeowner under the IRP, and to be approved for reimbursements of home sale benefits. He indicated that it would not have been possible for him to obtain a mortgage on the home without financial help from his relatives. He attached a written and signed declaration from those two relatives, whom he identified as "the co-owner" of the home, emphasizing that he had bought and carried the home on his own, and that he maintained "sole responsibility" for the home.

The RCMP denied the Grievor's request. It reasoned that he did not satisfy home ownership or co-ownership requirements under the IRP. The Grievor submitted a grievance, which the Level I Adjudicator denied on the merits. The Grievor then resubmitted his grievance at Level II.

The ERC expressed respect for the fact that, like the Grievor, many members of the RCMP use resourceful means to buy homes. However, those members cannot be considered co-owners of their homes, and receive home sale benefits under the IRP, unless they satisfy the requirements of an applicable co-ownership provision of that policy. Otherwise, the concepts of ownership and title, as contemplated in co-ownership provisions, would have little meaning.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision denying his request for coverage of expenses under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) relating to the residence, legally owned by relatives, which he occupied prior to his transfer. The Grievor argued that he was the owner by way of trust, as he paid all costs relating to the property, including the mortgage, insurance and taxes, occupied it, and his family had only assisted him. The Grievor produced a Declaration signed by himself and his relatives stating that the latter were only involved to financially assist the Grievor. The Respondent denied the expense since the Grievor was not on the legal title to the property, and the relatives providing assistance did not consist of his spouse or parent, and deemed him a renter, determining he did not meet the IRP’s criteria for reimbursement to homeowners. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the merits. At Level II, the grievance was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC), and the Chair recommended that the grievance be denied as it was clear that the Grievor did not qualify based on the provisions of the IRP. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC recommendation and dismissed the grievance.