Millard v. Canada (Attorney General), (1998) 149 F.T.R. 200 (TD)

• Judge: Campbell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 149 F.T.R. 200 (TD)

Millard v. Can. (A.G.) (1998), 149 F.T.R. 200 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.008

Clause Ranson Millard (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-2251-97)

Indexed As: Millard v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Campbell, J.

June 15, 1998.

Summary:

An RCMP officer was denied relocation compensation. He grieved. The External Review Committee denied the grievance. The Commissioner upheld the External Review Committee's finding. The RCMP officer applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application, set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for a redetermination. The court further directed that the only issues remaining for determination were those issues unaddressed by the Committee chairperson.

Family Law - Topic 1002

Common law or same sex relationships - Spouse - Meaning of - Under the RCMP relocation rules, a member was entitled to Home Equity Assistance Protection (HEAP) for a principal residence owned and occupied by the member or his spouse - Millard separated from his wife and relocated to Ontario - He obtained a divorce - Prior to the divorce, he began cohabiting with Baker in Baker's home - When he decided to make a pre-retirement move, he claimed HEAP respecting Baker's home on the basis that she was his common law spouse - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, concluded that the criteria contained in the definition of spouse under the relocation rules, did not include the requirement of freedom to marry - Therefore, Millard's marriage did not affect Baker's status as common law wife - See paragraphs 39 to 45.

Police - Topic 4046

Internal organization - Transfer of members - Expenses - Under the RCMP relocation rules, a member was entitled to Home Equity Assistance Protection (HEAP) respecting a principal residence owned and occupied by the member or his spouse - Millard and his wife owned and occupied a house in B.C. - They separated and Millard was transferred to Ontario - Millard elected to retain his BC residence under s. 4.4.4. of the relocation rules - Millard began cohabiting with Baker in a residence owned by Baker - Millard and his wife divorced - Subsequently, Millard decided to make a pre-retirement move - He gave up his option on the B.C. residence and sought HEAP compensation respecting the Ontario residence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the acquisition date of the Ontario property did not depend on the date that Millard gave up his B.C. property - See paragraphs 19 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Blanchett v. Hansell, [1944] 1 D.L.R. 21, refd to. [para. 43].

Authors and Works Noticed:

RCMP Relocation Administration Manual, Relocation Directive, ss. 4.4.4., 4.4.10 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Thomas Cole, for the applicant;

Sadian Campbell, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

T. Cole, Lakefield, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 26, 1998, before Campbell, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 15, 1998.