# 2011-102 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Interim Lodging, Meals and Incidentals (ILM&I), Mortgage Default...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–12–29

The grievor attempted to negotiate a door-to-door move during his relocation but was unable to do so. As a result, he spent several weeks in interim lodgings and requested additional reimbursement for Incidentals, Lodgings, Meals and Miscellaneous (ILM&M) expenses from the core envelope.

The grievor argued that he had followed the guidelines set out in the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), as well as the advice from his Brookfields Global Relocation Services (BGRS) consultants. He claimed that he had received inaccurate advice from the BGRS consultants that led to his decision to port his mortgage and use his personalized envelope to pay down the interest on his mortgage. This decision effectively depleted his personalized envelope and left it unavailable to cover the costs of additional ILM&M.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), denied the grievance. The IA found that the grievor had been made aware of his entitlements and responsibilities pursuant to the CF IRP, and noted that reimbursement of additional ILM&M was only provided when household goods and effects were “necessarily separated” from the member for reasons beyond their control. The IA determined that the grievor’s decision to buy and sell was within his control.

The Board noted that while the provisions of the CF IRP allowed for reimbursement of additional ILM&M if a door-to-door move had been unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond the member’s control, CANFORGEN 130/09 appeared to apply a different standard, allowing for reimbursement if the member could demonstrate that they made “every reasonable effort” to arrange a door-to-door move.

The Board found that the correct standard to be applied was pursuant to the CF IRP; however, the Board found that this standard was applied too restrictively and ought to be applied with more flexibility. The Board reiterated a recent systemic recommendation suggesting that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct the DGCB to conduct a review of its policy on providing additional ILM&M on door-to-door moves.

The Board found that whether or not the grievor was misinformed by the BGRS advisors, his entitlement to ILM&M was governed by factors unrelated to his mortgage situation. Further, the Board found that although the grievor made “every reasonable effort” to arrange a door-to-door move, the Board was unable to conclude that he met the more restrictive test in the CF IRP. Therefore, the Board found that the grievor was not entitled to additional ILM&M from the core envelope.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance. The Board further recommended that the CDS advise the grievor that if he wished to pursue a claim for negligent misrepresentation regarding the advice he received from the BGRS advisors, he must direct that claim to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–09

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. Since the circumstances were not "beyond the CF member's control" as per CF IRP 2009, the grievor was not eligible for additional reimbursement of ILM&M from the core envelop.