# 2012-121 Pay and Benefits, Overpayment, Relocation Expenses, Relocation of Dependants, Separation Expense (SE)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–27

At the time the grievor applied for enrolment he was residing in Canada. He emigrated to pursue post-secondary education and married while residing outside Canada. He accepted an offer to enrol, leaving his dependants, household goods and effects (D) HG&E at his place of residence outside of Canada. He received free rations and quarters (R&Qs) and Separation Expense (SE) throughout his training. Upon completion of training, he was posted with the authority to move. He requested relocation benefits to move his (D) HG&E to Canada. The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) denied his request saying it did not meet the conditions of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP). DCBA also determined that the grievor was not entitled to SE and free R&Qs.

The grievor argued he was misled by the CF Recruiting Center (CFRC) personnel as to his entitlements to relocation expenses from outside Canada, resulting in financial hardship for his family. He maintains that the CFRC was fully aware of his personal situation and had he been advised appropriately, he would have made a different choice. The grievor incurred expenses for the relocation of his spouse and he disposed of his HG&E as the cost to move them to Canada was higher than the cost of replacement. He requested compensation for expenses he incurred to relocate his spouse, losses related to his HG&E and restoration of his SE benefits and free R&Qs.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, found that the grievor was not entitled to a relocation from outside Canada, based on CF IRP article 11.1 – Move of (D) HG&E from place of enrolment, despite misrepresentations. The IA determined that the grievor was not entitled to SE benefits as his dependant was not normally resident with him at his place of duty in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 209.997 – Separation Expense. Finally, the IA found that the grievor did not meet the conditions set out in article 208.50 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) to receive R&Qs at public expense.

The Board found that the grievor received the relocation benefits to which he was entitled. He was not entitled to relocation benefits for his HG&E located outside of Canada. The Board also noted that he moved some HG&E at public expense from the location of his training to his first posting after training and received the benefits he was entitled to under CF IRP article 11.1.02. The Board concluded that it would be equitable and consistent with the provisions of the CBI and the CF IRP to exercise Ministerial authority, pursuant to CBI 209.013, to authorize the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the grievor for a house hunting trip (HHT) and a trip to new location (TNL), limited to the cost had he travelled from his place of enrolment, i.e. the geographical area of the CFRC. The Board found that the member was not eligible to receive SE benefits but was entitled to free R&Qs, pursuant to QR&O article 209.80.

As to reimbursement for the loss of HG&E, the Board considered whether it could be claimed outside of CF IRP provisions, but concluded that the circumstances did not meet the conditions of the QR&O articles applicable to reimbursement for loss of personal property. Finally, the Board concluded that the circumstances of this case do not meet the criteria for negligent representation, noting that the grievor may still submit a claim for consideration by the Director Claims and Civil Litigation.

The Board recommend the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance. Ministerial authority should be exercised to approve the reimbursement of HHT and TNL expenses, limited to the cost as if he had travelled from his place of enrolment. The Board also recommend the grievor be reimbursed for his R&Qs while on training.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–10–09

The CDS agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor did not qualify for SE, and since eligibility for free R&Q is predicated on eligibility for SE as per QR&O 208.50 (2), he did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed his R&Q. The CDS found that the grievor was eligible for the reimbursement of his spouse's travel to new location when she was with him for his HHT.