# 2012-046 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Benefits, Relocation Expenses, Relocation of Dependants

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–07–30

The grievor, a Regular Force officer, was denied a request to delay, for a second time, the relocation of her dependants and household goods and effects (DHG&E) upon being posted from the United States (US) to Canada in September 2010. In denying the second request, the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) stated that the grievor had forfeited her entitlement since she had not relocated her DHG&E by December 2010, the end of the initially approved deferment period. The DCBA also pointed out that, in accordance with the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) 2009, all dependants must have arrived at destination within 120 days after the change of strength (COS) date.

The grievor objected, arguing that the house she had purchased in the US had greatly declined in value during the global economic crisis and, therefore, she could not sell it in 2010. The grievor explained that she and her family had made considerable sacrifices during the last few years because of her Canadian Forces (CF) career and that their situation and circumstances were special enough for the CF to consider reinstating her benefits and authorizing the relocation of her DHG&E.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), the initial authority in this case, was unable to render a decision since the grievor refused a 60-day extension request. However, prior to the final authority adjudication, the DGCB considered the matter administratively due to the urgency of the situation facing the grievor and, in May 2012, issued a letter authorizing the relocation of the grievor’s HG&E. The DGCB based her decision on article 2.9.01 of the CF IRP 2009 which stipulates that there is a two-year time limitation from the COS date for a member to receive reimbursement of relocation benefits. The DGCB found that the grievor’s circumstances merited additional consideration and concluded that her HG&E relocation benefits should be reinstated. Due to time constraints, the DGCB did not consider the issue of relocating the grievor’s dependants as part of this review.

Therefore, the remaining issue to be determined by the Board was whether the grievor was also entitled to the relocation of her dependants at public expense.

The Board noted that article 2.9.01 of the CF IRP 2009 does not specify which relocation benefits are included under the two-year time limit to receive reimbursement nor does it exclude the transportation of dependants. Accordingly, and in the absence of any specific exclusion, the Board found that the DGCB’s decision to reinstate and authorize the grievor’s relocation at public expense in May 2012 should apply to all of the grievor’s relocation expenses, including those associated with relocating her dependants. Therefore, the Board found that the grievor was entitled to the relocation of her dependants at public expense.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–03–19

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to uphold the grievance.