# 2012-109 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Benefits, Relocation Expenses

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–21

In 2009, the grievor was posted to the United Kingdom (UK) on a one-year exchange student program. Upon relocating to the UK with his family, he placed the majority of his Household Goods and Effects (HG&E), including two private motor vehicles (PMVs) in long-term storage (LTS). The grievor based his decision on the short posting length and the limited size of the student quarters in which he and his family would be residing. However, prior to the end of his initial posting, the grievor received a new posting in the same geographical area. He was advised that he would not be entitled to a move and that he would have to vacate the student quarters and relocate to staff quarters.

A request was submitted on behalf of the grievor to the Relocation Adjudication Section of the Directorate of Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA RAS) asking for the exercise of Ministerial authority under the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 209.801 to authorize the grievor to travel back to Canada to access his HG&E in LTS, to arrange to have some of his HG&E shipped to his new residence in the UK, and to dispose of his two PMVs in storage.

The DCBA RAS denied the grievor’s request, stating that his situation did not fall within the parameters of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) article 12.7.04 as he was not cross-posted between places of duty. The DCBA RAS also indicated that the grievor’s situation did not meet the requirements under which access to the LTS can be provided.

As a result of this decision, the grievor hired a third party to dispose of his two PMVs in storage and submitted a grievance seeking reimbursement of the costs associated with the disposal of his two PMVs, amounting to $1,400.10.

The grievor argues that the Canadian Forces (CF) administrative system denied him the funding required to keep his vehicles in storage during his subsequent posting and failed to provide him with an alternative means to deal with the issue, short of incurring significant out-of-pocket expenses.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance, finding that there was no provision within the CF IRP to reimburse the expenses incurred by the grievor.

The Board first found that the grievor had no entitlement to a relocation at public expense because the second posting was within the same geographic area as the first posting. Next, the Board agreed with the IA’s finding that there was no provision within the CF IRP to reimburse the expenses incurred by the grievor for engaging the services of a third party to dispose of his vehicles. Finally, the Board considered the matter of Ministerial authority under CBI 209.801 and found that because the grievor’s expenses did not arise out of a relocation from one place of duty to another, that Ministerial authority could not be exercised.

Notwithstanding, the Board noted that it had been made aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had received the authority to exercise Ex Gratia payments. The exercise of this authority must respect the Treasury Board policy regarding Ex Gratia payments established in the Directives and Guidelines on Claims and Ex Gratia Payments.

The Board explained that although the CF IRP and the CBI Chapter 209 try to capture all eventualities that can occur following a posting, it is unreasonable to think that some local postings outside of Canada are, in all ways, comparable to local postings within Canada. The present case is a good example of this since the policy does not take into account the particular situation the grievor was faced with when he had to vacate one residence for another at the same place of duty due to a second posting. Accordingly, the Board found that the grievor’s case met the criteria for the CDS authority to use an Ex Gratia payment in order to pay the costs associated with the disposal of the grievor’s two PMVs.

The Board recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–02–04

The CDS did not agree with the Committee' s recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS agreed with the Committee that the grievor did not meet the policy criteria to grant access to his HG&E, and that there is no entitlement under the CFIRP relating to a third party removing a vehicle to sell it. However, the CDS disagreed with the Committee that an ex-gratia payment to the grievor would be appropriate in this case, since the grievor chose a course of action not covered by the CF IRP, and granting such payment would be akin to creating a new benefit. Since he determined that the grievor was treated fairly, the CDS was of the view that the question of granting any remedy is not justified.