# 2012-051 Pay and Benefits, Entitlement to Rations and Quarters (R&Q) at Public Expense , Imposed Restriction (IR), Overpayment,...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–07–25

The grievor was erroneously granted imposed restriction (IR) status at the time of her posting in 2009 and was informed she had to reimburse an amount in excess of $25,000.00 representing $6,916.00 in separation expense (SE) benefits, $10,895.21 for rations and $7,798.00 for quarters which she had been provided free of charge.

The grievor stated she was placed on IR status based on information and advice provided by qualified administrative personnel. She suggested that because of having been granted IR status, she was deprived of benefits associated with two full-cost moves which, in her opinion, would have amounted to $24,964.89. As well, she stated she was obliged to reside in quarters and participate in full rations which resulted in her having to reimburse a much higher amount than if she had bought her own food and used other housing options. She requested that the amount to be reimbursed be reduced to $644.32, the difference between the overpayment and the amount of benefits she felt she should have received.

The Board was of the view that expenses related to relocation, if engaged, can only be reimbursed if receipts can be provided and that nothing in the file allowed a determination whether the grievor was denied reimbursement of any relocation expenses to which she may have been entitled. The Board suggested that if the grievor believes she is entitled to more, she should request the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration to proceed with a review of her file.

The regulation governing SE in effect at the time was Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 209.997. One of the conditions for entitlement to SE benefits was that a Canadian Forces (CF) Member have a dependant who was normally residing with the member at the member's place of duty. Although the grievor was married and did have a dependant at the time she was posted, her husband never resided with her. Consequently, the Board found the grievor was not entitled to SE benefits and received them in error.

Similarly to other cases reviewed on this issue, the Board was of the view that it is unreasonable and unjust to collect this debt from the grievor and that a Treasury Board (TB) submission recommending remission of this portion of the debt should be prepared. However, in this case, the Board was of the opinion that both the CF and the grievor shared responsibility concerning the error and that only half of the debt should be remitted.

On the issue of R&Q, the Board noted that in accordance with article 11.2.11 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program 2009, CF members proceeding to their new place of duty without dependants must occupy single quarters (SQ) when available. The Board understood that because the grievor was given IR status and had applied for SE, as R&Q were available, she had no choice but to live on base and draw CF rations. The Board noted that with the grievor not being entitled to SE and unaccompanied by her husband, expenses related to food and lodgings were inescapable; however, because of the obligation to use R&Q, the grievor was precluded from seeking alternative lodgings and meal options which may have been cheaper than those offered on base.

The Board consulted Statistics Canada's Web Site and queried food and shelter expenditures for a one-person household in living rented quarters in the area of the grievor's place of duty. The Board concluded that by insisting that the grievor live on base and draw CF rations, her accommodation expenses were much higher than they could have been. In the circumstances, the Board was of the view that the grievor's debt should be abated by $6,566.21 for rations and $1,150.00 for quarters, the difference between what she paid on base and what she would have paid on average, on the economy. Furthermore, the Board noted that Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) article 208.52 gives the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) explicit authority to remit charges for R&Q. In the Board's view, by reducing the grievor's debt as proposed, the CDS would not provide free R&Q, but simply charge the grievor the "Canadian average" for shelter and food while posted at that location thus placing the grievor in a more realistic situation given that the sole reason she lived on base was due to her erroneous IR status.

The Board recommended to the CDS that he partially uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended that the CDS direct departmental authorities to prepare a submission (to be supported by the Minister of National Defence) to the TB requesting support for the remission of half the amount of $6,910.00 representing SE benefits paid in error, as per section 23 of the Financial Administrative Act. In the interim, the Board recommended that no further recovery action be taken until a decision on remission is made by the TB.

The Board also recommended to the CDS that in accordance with QR&O 208.52, he partially remit the grievor's R&Q charges as indicated above.

In the alternative, if the CDS does not agree with the recommendations above, the Board recommended that the repayment schedule currently in place ($150.00 per month) be maintained until another professional financial assessment is performed to determine, in light of the grievor's current situation, what would be an acceptable and reasonable monthly payment increase, if any.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Pending