G-779 - Relocation

After accepting a transfer and selling his house at a loss, the Grievor submitted a business case to demonstrate a depressed market status. The Grievor requested that the Respondent approve his business case and forward it to the Project Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) for consideration, pursuant to the RCMP’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP).

The Respondent denied the Grievor’s request, based his own interpretation of the data contained in the business case. The Level I Adjudicator denied the Grievor’s grievance on its merit, noting that the Grievor’s business case was missing two components: (1) the appraised value of the home when originally purchased, and (2) general and specific information on the geographical location and local economic state.

In his Level II written submission, the Grievor argued that the IRP is flawed, as it does not require members to obtain an appraisal of the house at the time of purchase. He also requested that the ERC make a finding on his eligibility for additional Home Equity Assistance benefits, as the IRP was replaced by the RCMP Relocation Directive while his grievance was still active.

Entitlement to Additional Home Equity Assistance Benefits

The ERC found that the Grievor’s entitlement to Home Equity Assistance benefits is outside the scope of this grievance. This issue was not raised as an issue in the Grievor’s Form 3081. Instead, this grievance focused on whether the Grievor was entitled to reimbursement under the depressed market provision of the IRP.

The ERC has previously found that the scope of the grievance must be delineated at the presentation of the grievance. Section 1 of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances) defines a "respondent" as "the person who made the decision, act or omission that is the subject of a grievance." If the Grievor intended to grieve his entitlement to Home Equity Assistance benefits, he was required to file a separate grievance identifying the appropriate decision-making authority as the respondent.

The Business Case

The ERC found that the Grievor’s business case is incomplete. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with RCMP policy to approve the Grievor’s business case and forward it to TBS.

The IRP

The ERC found that the IRP is not flawed. The policy is not designed to dictate how members buy and sell their homes. Members are free to determine for themselves what is in their best interests. Those decisions, however, might later disqualify them from certain benefits and entitlements set out in the IRP.

It is the member’s responsibility to know the applicable policies and ensure that any claims comply with the policies. Regardless of whether the IRP requires—or benefits cover—an appraisal at the time of purchase, such an appraisal is required to establish a case for depressed market status. 

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 to deny his request to forward his business case to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) for consideration of his claim for additional reimbursement of relocation expenses under the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). The Grievor insisted that the losses he incurred selling his home were consequent to a depressed housing market. The Respondent disagreed. The grievance was dismissed at Level I. The Grievor sought a review at Level II and the case was referred to the ERC where upon examination recommended that the grievance be denied. The Commissioner found that the Grievor did not demonstrate that he sold his home in a depressed housing market. As a result, the grievance was dismissed.