# 2015-150 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Intended Place of Residence (IPR)

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Intended Place of Residence (IPR)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–08–06

The grievor was denied an extension to the time-limit to complete his Intended Place of Residence (IPR) move. He argued that he should have been granted the extension because his ongoing divorce proceedings resulted in a court order restricting his access to his home and other assets.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), found that the redress requested would require a deviation from the prescriptions of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) directive, a Treasury Board policy which he had no authority to modify. The IA denied the grievance stating he had no authority to grant redress.

The Committee reviewed the provisions of the CF IRP and found that the grievor's situation, a divorce in which a negotiated settlement could not be reached, fell reasonably within the meaning of a situation “beyond his control” and therefore a one-year extension would be warranted and that DCBA had the authority to grant it under the CF IRP directive.

The Committee noted that the CF IRP directive grants the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) the authority to extend IPR moves in “exceptional circumstances.” While the Committee found that the situation was beyond the grievor's control, it was not an “exceptional circumstance” that would warrant consideration by the TBS, given that it is not “exceptional” for divorce proceedings to end up in the court system.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's finding and recommendation that the grievance be denied.

Page details

Date modified: