# 2012-019 - Door-to-Door Move, Interim Lodging, Meals and Incidentals (ILM&I), Mortgage Default Insurance (MDI),...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–04–19

The grievor was unable to effect a door-to-door move and requested additional interim lodgings, meals and miscellaneous (ILM&M) benefits. The Relocation Adjudication Section of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration denied the grievor's request.

In his grievance, the grievor argued that his relocation cost him and his family an amount in excess of $10,000 which included expenses related to ILM&M, mortgage interest differential (MID) and mortgage loan insurance (MLI). He explained that he sold his house conditionally at his former place of duty, but that the deal fell through as the potential buyers withdrew their offer. Having to secure accommodation for a large family (five children), he purchased a new residence at his new place of duty with a closing date a few weeks after he reported for duty; furthermore, he accepted a substantially reduced offer for his former residence, as well as an earlier closing date as he feared he would not be able to sell it and could not afford to carry two mortgages. As a result of having to pay for additional ILM&M expenses, the grievor stated he was forced to use equity from the sale of his residence which negatively affected the reimbursement of his MLI expenses. As redress, he requested the reimbursement of 13 days ILM&M from the core envelope, MID not covered by the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) and MLI expenses.

The initial authority (IA) found that the grievor was not entitled to reimbursement for additional ILM&M expenses as he did not facilitate a door-to-door move; the IA also noted that the grievor did not transfer the entire equity from the sale of his former residence and therefore he was not entitled to MLI. Regarding MID, the IA stated that the amount quoted by the grievor was an early repayment penalty (not MID) and there was no entitlement for it to be reimbursed. However, the IA found that the grievor was not reimbursed for MID and granted reimbursement in the amount of $965.61.

While sympathetic to the grievor's position with respect to family size, the limited choices of houses in his price range and his fear of not being able to sell his former residence, the Board found that the applicable policy was followed and that the grievor received the benefits to which he was entitled. The Board noted that expenses related to additional days of ILM&M were reimbursed from the grievor's personalized envelope. On the issue of MLI, the Board found that the grievor was treated in accordance with the CF IRP policy and to reimburse any additional funds would place him at an advantage over his peers, as well as being contrary to Treasury Board's direction.

The Board noted and accepted the IA's explanation concerning what the grievor identified as MID and expressed the hope that the IA decision concerning this portion of the grievance would satisfy the grievor's concerns with respect to MID.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–10–22

The CDS partially agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. Because of his family size and financial limitations, the CDS determined that the grievor made "every reasonable effort" as per CANFORGEN 130/09 to arrange a door-to-door move, but that reasons "beyond his control" prevented him from doing so. Therefore, the CDS directed that the grievor be reimbursed for his additional days of ILM&M from his core envelope. As for the MID remaining , the CDS held that it will be reimbursed from the grievor's personalized envelope, since his ILM&M expenses will be moved to his core envelope.