G-762 - Relocation

The Grievor contested the Respondent’s decision denying his claim for reimbursement under the 2009 Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP). When the Force relocated the Grievor in 2014, he indicated a loss of $51,000 on the sale of his residence. He had purchased it for $374,000, made capital upgrades of $13,000, and sold for $336,000 as a result of a decline in the local real estate market. The Grievor’s claim for compensation under the Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP) in the IRP was denied by the Respondent because his residence value exceeded the $300,000 residence value cap to be eligible for the HEAP in the IRP.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent’s decision. At Level I, the Grievor also claimed compensation under the depressed market status provision of the IRP. His realtor wrote a letter outlining a market value drop of 12-14% for homes in that area of similar value. His grievance was dismissed at Level I.

At Level II, he argued that the residence value cap was far from modern, which contradicted the IRP’s stated guiding principles, and did not meet the objective set out in the IRP for the relocation process to have minimal detrimental effects on the member. He further argued that he should be reimbursed in accordance with the subsequently issued 2017 Relocation Directive which removed the residence value cap and increased the HEAP. The Grievor argued he should be entitled to the HEAP provided to Canadian Forces personnel because the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, which has no residence value cap, is also administered by the Treasury Board, and is almost the same as the IRP. Lastly, he argued he was entitled to compensation under the depressed market status provision of the IRP as provided to Canadian Forces personnel.

The ERC indicated it is mandated to review the Respondent’s decision to determine whether it was rendered in accordance with RCMP and Treasury Board policies, and applicable law. In arguing that the HEAP policy contradicted itself, the Grievor was challenging the IRP policy, as opposed to challenging a decision made under that policy, which was beyond the scope of the grievance.

The ERC found that the 2017 Relocation Directive was not relevant to the grievance. The Respondent applied the correct policy, the 2009 IRP, which was applicable to the Grievor’s 2014 relocation. There was no authority to apply the HEAP provision in the new policy beyond the retroactive date of April 1, 2016. The ERC noted the presumption against the retroactive application of policies and found that the Grievor had not rebutted the presumption.

The ERC found that the Respondent was bound to apply the applicable RCMP policy and had no discretion to do otherwise. Section 1.05.5 of the IRP provides that the IRP is a policy, not permissive guidelines, and that there is no discretion to extend benefits or create entitlements unless specifically authorized in a provision. The IRP does not specifically authorize any discretion to circumvent the $300,000 residence value cap. The ERC further found that the eligible capital improvements provision was a moot issue given that the Grievor was disqualified from compensation by the $300,000 residence value cap.

The ERC found that the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program was not applicable to the grievance, and that the Respondent had no authority to apply any policy other than the RCMP’s IRP.

Although at Level I the Grievor also requested financial compensation under the depressed market status provision, the Grievor did not build a business case for depressed marked status as required by the IRP, and no decision was made by the Force with respect to that provision. The letter from the Grievor’s realtor neither constituted a business case, nor met the required 20% decline in the real estate market to constitute depressed market status. The ERC found that the Grievor’s request for financial compensation under the depressed market status provision was beyond the scope of the grievance.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

The Grievor was relocated and incurred a loss on the sale of his home, which was valued in excess of $300,000. The Grievor sought reimbursement for the loss under the Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP) provisions of the Integrated Relocation Program policy (IRP), 2009, in effect at the time. The HEAP provisions were restricted to homes under $300,000 and due to the cap, the Grievor was ineligible and reimbursement was denied. The Grievor disputed the existence of the cap. The Level I adjudicator dismissed the grievance, finding the Grievor failed to establish that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with applicable policies and legislation. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. At Level II, the Grievor filed the updated IRP Directive and sections that eliminated the cap shortly after the Level I decision, and the Grievor requested it be applied retroactively to reimburse him. The matter was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) resulting in a recommendation that the grievance be dismissed. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC. The Commissioner accepted that the Grievor was challenging the Respondent's decision to deny HEAP, and that the updated IRP clearly provided it was retroactive only to April 1, 2016, not earlier, and as such did not apply to the Grievor whose home sold on July 4, 2014. The Commissioner dismissed the grievance.