Grievance Case Summary - G-346

In 1997, the Grievor was transferred to Lundar, Manitoba where he took up occupancy of Crown-owned accommodation. On March 6, 2000, while the Grievor was away on leave, the municipal sewer malfunctioned. The result was an accumulation of sewage-contaminated water in the Grievor's basement. As a result, personal property of the Grievor was destroyed or damaged. On April 13, 2000, the Grievor sent a message to the RCMP Property Management Services stating that a local plumber had inspected the property and determined that a back-check valve had been installed in the basement, but was inoperable. On May 4, 2000, the Grievor submitted a claim to the RCMP for damages to his personal property caused by a faulty back-check valve. The claim was refused because of paragraph 13 of the Occupancy Agreement signed by the Grievor which stated that "The occupant is fully responsible for damage or loss of personal effects while occupying the Crown-provided dwelling".

The Committee accepts the Grievor's submission that he had no choice but to reside in Crown-owned accommodation and that he was required to sign the Occupancy Agreement presented to him. However, the Committee also finds that the Occupancy Agreement clearly set out the terms and conditions and it was not unfair. Because of paragraph 13 of the Occupancy Agreement, there was no Crown liability for personal property damage, even if the damage had been caused by Crown negligence. Furthermore, it was impossible to know how long the back-check valve was inoperative, and whether the problem could have been detected prior to the sewer back-up. The Committee also concluded that it could not recommend an ex gratia payment in this case, because the applicable Treasury Board policy specifically stated that an ex gratia payment was not to be used "to fill perceived gaps or compensate for the apparent limitations in any act, order, regulation, policy, agreement or other governing instruments ...".

The grievance should be denied.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Commissioner rendered his decision on July 22, 2006. The Commissioner concluded that since Treasury Board policy indicates that there is no formal landlord-tenant relationship between the Crown and employees who occupy Crown-owned accommodation, the occupancy agreement cannot be viewed as a contract between two equal parties. It is simply a vehicle by which the employee is made aware of each party's respective responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the occupancy agreement, which stated that the RCMP was not responsible for damage to, or loss of, personal effects, shielded the RCMP from liability in this case.

The Commissioner also agreed with the ERC that the Treasury Board's Policy on Claims and Ex-Gratia Payments did not apply to the Grievor's situation.

The grievance was denied.