G-793 - Harassment

The Grievor learned he would receive a cost transfer to another post in the same Division (New Post). He then conversed with the Force’s Contracted Relocation Service Provider (CRSP) and two Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) about details of the upcoming relocation, including his planned House-Hunting Trip (Trip). Around this time, he received guidance documents and had access to the Force’s Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) Policy. He took the Trip but was not successful in securing a suitable residence at the New Post. He therefore chose to move into a dwelling he had built near the New Post, and had initially planned to use as an income property.

The Grievor made a claim for Trip expenses. The Relocation Reviewer denied it. She explained that she could not approve his claim because he had not sought written pre-authorization for his Trip, contrary to an explicit IRP Policy requirement. The Grievor filed a business case asking for a reimbursement of Trip expenses due to exceptional circumstances. The Respondent decided there were no exceptional circumstances and denied the business case (Decision). The Grievor grieved the Decision. Subsequently, a Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on its merits. 

After concluding that there were no preliminary issues that impeded its ability to address the grievance, the ERC found that the grievance could not succeed, for two reasons.

First, the Grievor was ineligible to recover his Trip expenses under section 4 of the IRP Policy because he omitted to obtain the necessary, written pre-authorization for the Trip. As a result of this omission, there was no financial authority to spend public funds on a reimbursement of Trip expenses. The Grievor’s discussions with the CRSP and NCOs did not amount to permission to take the Trip. In addition, although the Grievor did what he “thought was right” in opting to take the trip without ensuring he had pre-authorization, this was not a basis for recovering expenses.

Second, there were no exceptional circumstances that justified reimbursing the Grievor’s Trip expenses. Some of his positions boiled down to blaming the Force and the CRSP for his lack of familiarity with the IRP Policy. Yet, he had a duty to acquaint himself with authorities that applied to his situation, and to ensure his claims adhered to them. He otherwise did not meet his burden of persuasion to prove that the circumstances of his relocation were exceptional. There was no evidence supporting his positions that his move was unduly rushed, or led to financial hardship.

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

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

On April I, 2010, the Grievor received a cost transfer. Shortly afterwards, he went on his house-hunting trip to secure a residence at his new post. Unfortunately, he did not obtain the authorization from the Relocation Reviewer prior to his trip as required by the Integrated Relocation Program policy. A business case was submitted to the Respondent.

The Respondent did not support the Grievor's request to be reimbursed for the house-hunting trip expenses as they were incurred without pre-authorization and they were not the result of events that were exceptional or outside the Grievor's control.

Upon consideration of the matter, it is found that the Grievor has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent's decision was inconsistent with law or policy. Consequently, the Grievance is dismissed.