# 2011-136 Pay and Benefits, Door-to-Door Move, Interim Lodging, Meals and Incidentals (ILM&I), Relocation Expenses, Storage Fees
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012–02–09
Two days before arriving at his new place of duty and taking possession of his new residence, a fire caused significant damage to the residence and the grievor could not close the sale nor move in as planned. As a result, the grievor's household goods and effects (HG&E) were placed in storage in transit (SIT) and the grievor, as well as his dependants, moved in with relatives. The grievor's request for the reimbursement of an additional 15 days of interim lodgings, meals and miscellaneous (ILM&M) expenses from core funds was denied by the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) on the basis that the delay in taking possession of his residence was not caused by the Canadian Forces (CF) nor its agents and, therefore, there was no entitlement to additional ILM&M days.
The grievor submitted a grievance stating that he had arranged a door-to-door move and that he incurred additional expenses as a result of the damage caused by the fire which delayed the closing date. In his opinion, his request for 15 additional ILM&M days to be reimbursed from core funds was reasonable in the circumstances.
The initial authority (IA) informed the grievor that he was entitled to one additional day ILM&M since he was on duty on the unpack day of his HG&E, which meant the delay was caused by the department. However, the IA was satisfied that the grievor had been reimbursed the maximum entitlement from core funds in accordance with (IAW) the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) in effect at the time.
The file was reviewed and a synopsis was prepared by a member of the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority staff prior to being referred to the Board. It was noted in the synopsis that, IAW the CF IRP in effect at the time, the purpose of ILM&M is to provide reimbursement within prescribed limits during the time when ... HG&E are necessarily separated from CF members for reasons beyond their control. The prescribed limits are 15 days meals and 20 nights lodgings, excluding the number of days allowed for packing/loading/cleaning at origin and unloading/unpacking at destination. The synopsis concluded that since the grievor had made every effort to effect a door-to-door move and since the reason for the delay was not within his control, he was entitled to additional ILM&M days; in this case, it was recommended that the grievor be reimbursed for six additional days lodgings and one day's meals from core; as well, it was recommended that the full cost of SIT be reimbursed as a core and custom benefit.
The Board agreed in principle with the reasoning in the synopsis and concluded that the grievor was entitled to additional ILM&M, as well as being reimbursed SIT costs. The Board's calculations, however, differed slightly from those indicated in the synopsis; a review of the file revealed that the grievor received reimbursement for five days at origin (two of which were weekend days), 13 days travelling time and three days unload/unpack at destination (which included the additional day granted by the IA). Consequently, in the Board's view, the grievor was entitled to an additional seven days lodgings instead of the proposed six days.
The Board also opined that the comments from the DCBA and the IA that no additional payment of ILM&M could be paid out of core since the department or its contracted agent did not cause the delay, is an overly restrictive interpretation of the policy; in the Board's view, the CF should have a more generous provision to allow for unforeseen events.
The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that the grievance be partially granted.
The Board recommended that the grievor be reimbursed for an additional seven days lodgings and two days meals from core funds in addition to the SIT costs from core and custom envelopes.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2012–12–20
The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. Since the grievor was not to blame for the fire at his new residence, his HG&E were separated from him for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, he should have received the maximum core benefit within the limitations of Chapter 5 of the CFIRP 2008 Directive.