# 2012-120 Pay and Benefits, Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Relocation Benefits

Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–20

The grievor enrolled in the Regular Force (Reg F) in 1975 and transferred to the Reserve Force in 1997. Although he was entitled to the full benefits of a move to his intended place of residence (IPR) (full IPR move) at that time, he chose not to elect an IPR move. He later component transferred to the Reg F in 2008 and as he approached compulsory retirement age (CRA), requested that his previous Reg F service be combined with his current service so that he could be entitled for a full IPR move.

The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration, denied the grievor's request on the basis that a Canadian Forces (CF) member has a two-year period to elect an IPR move which may be extended for another year; however, in this instance, the grievor did not elect an IPR over the three-year period so his entitlement to an IPR move had expired.

The grievor disagreed with this decision and as in his view, his IPR entitlements should be based on both his previous and current Reg F service because he had never exercised the right to elect an IPR.

The Initial Authority (IA) in this matter, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance explaining that the grievor had failed to exercise his right to a full IPR move when he first released in 1997, nor did he do so within the three-year period when he had the right to do so. The IA also explained that although the grievor had component transferred back to the Reg F, he had not served long enough to have earned another fully funded IPR move because usually, when a CF member reaches CRA, relocation benefits are based on their period of “continuous” Reg F service completed and the release item.

The issue before the Board was whether the grievor's IPR move and benefits were calculated in accordance with the CF relocation policy.

The Board examined the specific situation of the grievor, i.e. his entitlement in accordance with the policy, based on the fact that he served for two distinct periods in the Reg F. The Board concluded that the policy simply does not take into consideration split time or previous service; each period of service is taken into account for the purpose of an IPR move and they cannot be combined or added to enable an IPR entitlement. The Board observed that in fact, the notion of “continuous” Reg F service is key in determining relocation benefits.

The Board recommended the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–02

Since the grievor was medically released, he no longer requested a financial compensation but changes in the CF IRP policy to combine the separates periods of Reg F service to qualify for an IPR. The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS was of the view that the continuous Reg F service is an essential requirement to be eligible for the benefit and it was designed to encourage long term service in the Reg F and to provide members with an opportunity to live in a desired location after a long career that involved several moves.

Page details

Date modified: