# 2013-032 Pay and Benefits, Allowances and Benefits, House Hunting Trip (HHT), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Pet Care/Transportation Expenses

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–04–30

The grievor requested reimbursement of pet care expenses incurred while on a short notice house hunting trip (HHT). On the day he was notified of his HHT, he attempted to arrange boarding for his dog but the only kennel offering indoor boarding was full. On the same date, he requested permission from Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) to hire a house or dog sitter as an alternative to the kennel. The grievor was advised that there was no such entitlement within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) 2009 policy. Later that day, he submitted a request to the Directorate of Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) in accordance with CF IRP article 1.3.02 as the BGRS had advised.

Twenty-one months after the request was made, DCBA provided a decision denying the request for reimbursement of non-commercial pet care costs incurred during the HHT as it did not meet the intent of CF IRP, article 4.6.03.

The Board found that the grievor took all reasonable steps given the circumstances and that he had no alternative but to arrange private care for his dog. The Board also found that the relevant CF IRP policy clearly requires the use of a commercial provider before actual and reasonable pet care expenses can be reimbursed. The Board noted that these are Treasury Board requirements and, regrettably, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) has no authority to modify or make exceptions. Therefore, the DCBA decision to deny reimbursement was justified and in accordance with policy.

The Board pointed out the CF IRP policy in this regard should be reviewed as there may well be serving members living in locations where no commercial kennel service is available, or it may be less expensive in some cases to obtain private pet care rather than commercial pet care.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–10–07

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS disagreed with the Committee's observation that the policy requires further review. The need to maintain arms-length transactions when it comes to relocations of CAF members is important to ensure the absolute integrity of the entire CFIRP; hence the requirement for the use of commercial service providers in respect of many benefits.