G-730 - Travel

The Grievor travelled to a remote post to do relief work. He stayed there for 31 nights, in what was described as “[C]rown owned accommodations”. He asked for a Private Accommodation Allowance (PAA) of $1,550 (31 nights at $50 per night). The RCMP refused his request. The Grievor grieved this decision. He filed the submission of another grievor who had been denied a PAA for his stay in a different province at a different time. The other grievor argued, among other things, that because he stayed in a Crown-owned home rented by a member, that home was a “private non-commercial accommodation”, and a PAA was payable. The Grievor cited case law.

The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance. She found that the other grievor’s submission did not show that the Grievor was owed a PAA, and that the Grievor had not established any links between the other grievor’s case and his own case. She added that the Grievor neither filed the case law he relied on nor specified how it was relevant. The Grievor presented his grievance at Level II. He stresses that he stayed in a home that was rented by a member at the remote post. He provides some emails in support of that point. He questions why this information needed to be established at Level I. He adds that a “new development” suggests he should receive PAA.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that there were no preliminary issues that prohibited a review of the grievance. However, the new information and evidence the Grievor filed at Level II were not admissible. They had been available or accessible years earlier during Level I of the grievance, yet the Grievor omitted to reasonably explain why he could not have tendered them at that time.

The ERC concluded that the Grievor may have been eligible to receive a PAA only if the lodging where he stayed could be found to be a “private non-commercial accommodation” (i.e. “private dwelling or non-commercial facilities where the traveller does not normally reside”). The Grievor did not provide the facts necessary to support such a finding. The record shows that he stayed in a Crown property. This by itself was not necessarily fatal to his case. Members who perform relief duty at other posts stay in various types of Crown lodgings, including institutional facilities, units inside of detachment buildings, vacant homes, and homes being rented by other members on an ongoing basis. The latter type of property can be considered private and non-commercial to the extent that it retains a “private character” as a result of someone living in it. However, the Grievor did not supply any details about where he stayed. He instead referred to case law, and filed another grievor’s unrelated submission, without stating how either applied to his situation. He then hoped the Level I Adjudicator would make sense of those documents and award him a PAA. Such an outcome would be unjustifiable in the absence of a factual foundation that supported it. Lastly, the issue of whether the Grievor could receive a PAA further to a new development that post-dated his grievance was beyond the scope of the matter before thye ERC.

The ERC thanked the Grievor for spending 31 nights away from his home in order to provide relief services in a remote community that needed his help.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated January 23, 2021

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

The Grievor challenged the Respondent’s decision to deny his expense claim for the private non-commercial accommodation allowance (PAA). The Level I Adjudicator dismissed the grievance. The ERC recommended the grievance be denied on the basis that the Grievor stayed in government and institutional accommodation. The Commissioner accepts that the Grievor stayed in a Crown-owned residence that was being rented by another member, thereby creating an entitlement to the PAA. The Grievance is allowed.

Page details

2026-07-30

Choose a theme