G-748 - Relocation

The Grievor received a transfer notice. He owned a residence at his old post, which he listed for sale. The property was on the market for a month, but it did not sell. The Grievor’s real estate agent advised that the property would only sell if the asking price was lowered. This meant that the Grievor would lose the money he had spent on home improvements. The Grievor consulted the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) and concluded that he would qualify for the Eligible Capital Improvements (ECI) reimbursement due to the financial loss.

The Grievor contacted his Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) Advisor. The BGRS Advisor confirmed that the Grievor may qualify for reimbursement if he completes the sale and provides home improvement receipts. The Grievor proceeded to sell the residence at a loss. When he provided the requested receipts to the BGRS Advisor, she responded that he would not qualify for any reimbursement under the ECI provisions of the IRP because his residence had sold for more than $300,000.

The Grievor submitted a grievance, requesting to be reimbursed the full amount he had originally claimed. The Grievor argued that he was entitled to compensation for ECI under the IRP even if his residence was valued over $300,000. The Grievor also believed that the BGRS Advisor had provided him with inaccurate and improper advice. The Respondent contended that the ECI provisions under the IRP did not provide a separate benefit. Instead, they modified the benefit under the Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), which was limited to residences valued at or under $300,000. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Grievor was responsible for being familiar with applicable policy, and that he should not have relied on information provided by the BGRS Advisor.

The ERC recommends that the grievance be denied. The ERC found that the ECI provisions only applied to benefits under HEAP and were not benefits in and of themselves. Therefore, any claim under ECI was subject to the HEAP limit of $300,000 in property value. The ERC also found that the Grievor had not demonstrated that he could claim the same amount under the doctrine of estoppel. While the BGRS Advisor made a representation which was intended to be relied upon, there was no indication that this representation caused the Grievor to suffer any detriment. At the time when he received information from the BGRS Advisor, the Grievor had already listed his residence for sale. Furthermore, the BGRS Advisor only stated that the Grievor may be entitled to compensation once he completed the sale and provided receipts. She did not make an unconditional representation that the Grievor would receive any benefits for ECI.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the grievance.

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

The Grievor challenged a decision by the Director of Financial Policy, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, denying the Grievor’s claim for reimbursement under the 2009 Integrated Relocation Program Policy (IRP). At Level I, the Adjudicator denied the grievance, finding that the Grievor had not established his case. The Grievor sought a review at Level II. The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied on the basis that the applicable policy did not entitle the Grievor to claim the reimbursement, nor had the Grievor demonstrated his entitlement to the reimbursement under the doctrine of estoppel. The Commissioner agreed, and dismissed the grievance.