# 2015-002 - Separation Expense (SE)

Separation Expense (SE)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–03–24

The grievor submitted a grievance to contest the denial and recovery of separation expense (SE) pursuant to the SE policy contained in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 208.997. After consulting with the recruiting centre, the grievor moved his dependants, household goods and effects ((D)HG&E) at his own expense, one week after enrolling. He was later denied SE since his (D)HG&E were no longer located at his principal residence as defined in the CBI. He submitted that the policy requiring a CAF member to remain in the same principal residence was prejudicial to newly recruited members joining the CAF. As redress, he requested that the decision to deny him SE benefits be reversed and the recovered funds be returned to him on the basis that the policy was unfair.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that although the grievor's situation met the purpose of SE, as prescribed in CBI 208.997(1), it did not meet all of the eight criteria required for entitlement to SE as required by CBI 208.997(3), more specifically the “principal residence” criteria.

The Committee agreed that although the grievor's situation met the intent of SE benefits as described in CBI 208.997(1), it did not meet all of the conditions necessary for the SE entitlement as prescribed in CBI 208.997(2) and (3). Once the grievor moved his (D) HG&E, his residence no longer met the definition of “principal residence” and strictly speaking, the grievor was not entitled to SE.

The Committee noted that this was a restrictive condition, as it applies to newly recruited CAF members and fails to take into consideration the possibility that a CAF member's personal situation could change subsequent to their enrollment, but prior to their entitlement to move their (D) HG&E. The Committee was of the view that, similar to a finding in a recent grievance, no member should be expected to pay for two accommodations where there was no choice but to attend required training in another location. Thus, the Committee recommended that even if the grievor was not strictly entitled to SE, his circumstances should have been recognized as exceptional and any charges for quarters remitted in accordance with Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces article 208.52.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Pending

Page details

Date modified: