# 2015-103 - Real Estate and Legal Fees

Real Estate and Legal Fees

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–07–31

The grievor submitted that the denial of benefits associated with the sale of his home was unjust. He argued that he should be eligible for expenses related to the sale of the home that he co-owned with his ex-spouse and that was occupied by his two dependant sons immediately prior to the sale.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance finding that the grievor was not entitled to sale benefits for the property as it was not considered his “principal residence” for the purposes of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP).

The Committee found that in order to qualify for benefits related to the sale of a principal residence, there is an occupancy requirement at the time of sale, as stated in article 8.2.02 of the CF IRP. As the grievor was not occupying the principal residence immediately prior to the sale, the Committee looked to his dependants. However, the Committee found that because the grievor was not residing with his sons when the house was sold, for the purpose of Intended Place of Residence benefits, his sons could not be considered as his dependants. Thus, the grievor did not meet the occupancy requirements set out in article 8.2.02 as neither he nor his dependants (as defined by the CF IRP) occupied the residence immediately prior to its sale.

The Committee recommended the grievance be denied

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Pending

Page details

Date modified: