# 2022-188 Pay and Benefits, Pet care/Transportation expenses, Relocation, Relocation benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-05-25

The grievor argued that additional flight costs were a result of an altered itinerary for pet shipment expenses and that the denial of her request would be both contrary to the intent of article 6.07 of the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) and disproportionately affect her as a single member. As redress, the grievor sought reimbursement of the additional flight costs incurred to retrieve her second pet. 

The Initial Authority (IA) stated that the grievor completed her Travel to New Location (TNL) when she arrived at her new place of duty. The IA referred to article 9.2.06 of the CAFRD, stating that the grievor's return flights did not qualify as commercial pet shipment expenses and that all members are afforded the same benefit, regardless of marital status. The IA denied the grievance and did not afford redress. 

The Committee found that there was no entitlement to reimbursement of additional flight costs. It could not be considered an altered itinerary, as part of TNL under article 6.07 of the CAFRD, or pet shipment expenses under article 9.2.06 of the CAFRD. The Committee also found that the CAFRD did not disproportionately affect the grievor due to her marital status. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.