# 2011-114 Pay and Benefits, Dependants, Imposed Restriction (IR), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Negligent...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–12–12

The grievor was posted to a new place of duty in another province. The grievor was duly authorized an imposed restriction (IR) and separation expense (SE) benefits while his dependent spouse remained at the former place of duty. A year later the grievor asked his career manager what the effect would be on his SE if he sold his principal residence at his former place of duty and his spouse moved in with her parents approximately one hour and 45 minutes away from the former place of duty. The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) 3 was consulted as the subject matter expert (SME). He determined that the grievor could continue to receive the SE as long as he did not elect a move to his intended place of residence (IPR). The grievor sought further clarification under a scenario where he would be releasing from the Regular Force within one year and would elect his IPR at a later date. The SME confirmed that the grievor would still be entitled to the SE benefit. The grievor then sold his principal residence at his former place of duty as had been discussed.

Subsequently, 18 months later, the DCBA 3 stated that he had misunderstood the grievor’s request and indicated that the grievor was no longer entitled to SE benefits since the grievor had ceased maintaining the expenses of a principal residence at his former place of duty and had moved his spouse to reside with her parents. Direction was given to recover the SE paid for the period after the sale of his house.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision because the grievor refused to grant an additional extension of time to the IA following three previous 120-day extensions.

An analyst at the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA) reviewed the grievor’s circumstances under the criteria set out in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 209.997 – Separation Expense. The analyst determined that the grievor’s circumstances did not breach the SE criteria and he was therefore entitled to the SE benefit following the sale of his house. The analyst recommended that the grievance be upheld.

The Board reviewed the grievor’s circumstances under the SE criteria and agreed with the DGCFGA analyst. The Board found that the grievor was entitled to receive the SE benefit for the period after he sold his house until his subsequent posting.

The Board recommended that the final authority uphold the grievance and direct that any recovery action cease, that the grievor be reimbursed for any monies that have been recovered, and that he be paid any SE monies still owing for the remainder of the posting.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–03–05

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to grant the grievance. The grievor was authorized to receive SE since he met one of the reasons listed in CBI 209.997(5) which was the fact that his spouse could not relocate as she needed to maintain access to specialized medical care. Since the CBI was silent as to whether or not a member or his dependant must maintain a principal residence, nothing prohibits a member's dependant from subsequently relocating, causing a loss to the member's entitlement to SE as a result.