# 2012-087 Others, Administrative Action, Married Quarters (MQ), Residential Housing Unit (RHU)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–10–11

The grievor, a member of the Regular Force residing in a semi-attached Residential Housing Unit (RHU) within the confines of a Canadian Forces Base, made a number of complaints regarding the actions of his neighbour and his family to the local Manager for the Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA), to his unit chain of command (CoC), to the military and civilian police and to an outside agency but was unsatisfied with the responses.

The grievor complained that, although supported by his own unit CoC, the responsible Base authorities had failed to take appropriate action in response to his complaints thus allowing the offending actions of his neighbour to continue. The grievor also alledged that certain Base authorities who should have been assisting him had instead engaged in defamation of his character, abuse of authority and intimidation against him. As redress, the grievor requested that an investigation be directed to examine the actions of his neighbour and to determine why Base authorities failed to properly investigate and address his complaints.

The initial authority (IA), the Base Commander, denied the grievance, primarily on the basis that the appropriate authorities had found no chargeable offences on which to act and that the local CFHA Manager had decided that eviction of the neighbour was not warranted. The IA also concluded that there had been no defamation of the grievor's character, nor any abuse of authority by Base personnel. The IA explained that an administrative investigation had been planned but was put in abeyance because the grievor and his neighbour had commenced an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. Following the grievor's withdrawal from the ADR process, both the grievor and his neighbour were posted away from the Base thereby negating the need for an investigation in the opinion of the IA.

The Board first considered the grievor's extensive list of complaints and determined that, because certain complaints did not refer to any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CF as required by Section 29 (1) of the National Defence Act, they were not grievable. Thus, they were not considered further.

Regarding the grievor's primary complaint that there ought to have been more timely administrative action to resolve his conflict with his neighbour, the Board agreed that there was some merit to the grievor's argument, finding that the Base authorities should have conducted an administrative investigation. However, the Board also found that since both individuals have since been posted from the Base in question, there would be no point now to conducting an investigation.

Regarding the related issues, the Board found that:

• without the benefit of the information from an investigation, there was insufficient evidence on the file to second-guess the decision not to evict the grievor's neighbour;

• a grievor may not grieve a decision regarding the discipline of another CF member; and

• the grievor's allegations of defamation of character, abuse of authority and intimidation were not supported by the evidence on file.

The Board recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–09–11

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to deny the grievance.