G-778 - Relocation

After being transferred and selling her house at a loss, the Grievor requested financial assistance through the Home Equity Assistance Plan (HEAP), under the RCMP’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP).

The Respondent denied the Grievor’s request, on the basis that her house was not actively marketed, pursuant to the IRP. The Level I Adjudicator agreed with the Respondent.

In her Level II written submission, the Grievor argued that the Level I Adjudicator erred when applying the criterion of “actively marketed” to a HEAP application, because that term is only mentioned in the section concerning Temporary Dual Residence Assistance.

The Grievor also argued that the Level I Adjudicator should not have considered the Respondent’s written submission, because it was late.

The Respondent’s Late Written Submission

The ERC has previously found that it does not appear reasonable that statutory deadlines may be retroactively extended, pursuant to subsection 47.4(1) of the RCMP Act, but administrative deadlines cannot be similarly extended. Based on considerations of the length of the delay and any prejudice caused to the other party, the ERC found that the Respondent’s written submission was only four days late, and that the Grievor suffered no prejudice from granting an extension and considering the submission.

“Actively Marketed” and the HEAP Criteria

The ERC found that the active-marketing criterion should not be considered in assessing HEAP applications. The criterion of “actively marketed”, as defined in the IRP, is intended to apply to Temporary Dual Residence Assistance. Nevertheless, the difference between the listing price and the RCMP appraisal value may still be considered in the assessment of the member’s responsibility to ensure that all possible effort is made to prevent the need for HEAP, as the IRP requires that members make all efforts to avoid the need for HEAP benefits.

The Grievor’s Entitlement to HEAP

The ERC found that the Grievor accepted unnecessary risk by listing her property well above the RCMP’s appraisal, and not reducing the price when the market conditions indicated that the price was too high. Listing at a price that is consistent with the appraisal and the conditions of the market gives the member better odds of selling early, thereby preventing a slow and steady decline in the asking price and, ultimately, the final selling price. Listing at a price that is in line with the appraisal also helps to reduce the risk of selling later in the event that there is a continuing decline in the market. Therefore, the Grievor did not make all possible efforts to prevent the need for HEAP, as required under the IRP, and is not entitled to the benefits.

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 her home. She 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. Contrary to the recommendation of her realtor and Brookfield Relocation Advisor, the Grievor listed her home above the appraisal price. The Grievor’s claim was reviewed by the Respondent who subsequently denied the request on the basis that the property was not actively marketed. 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. The matter was referred to the ERC resulting in a recommendation that the grievance be dismissed. The Commissioner agreed with the ERC. The Commissioner accepted that it was the Grievor’s right to determine the price she wished to list her home, thereby accepting the risk of a declining market which also lowered her odds of receiving offers early in the listing. The difference between the listing price and the RCMP appraisal value affected the member’s responsibility to ensure that all possible efforts were made to prevent the need for HEAP. The Commissioner dismissed the grievance.