# 2015-176 - Intended Place of Residence (IPR)

Intended Place of Residence (IPR)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–02

After taking an early Intended Place of Residence (IPR) move, the grievor decided to extend his Terms of Service (TOS) and elected Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) 60. He then requested that his IPR move benefit be reinstated. The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) denied his request stating that the grievor has to be posted again for his IPR move to be reinstated.

The grievor subsequently accepted a posting and soon thereafter decided to take his release. Upon pursuing his release move benefits, the grievor learned that he was not entitled to an IPR move because he had not completed his new TOS. He then submitted a grievance about the denial of the reinstatement of his IPR move.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, denied the grievance stating that because the grievor had not completed his new TOS he was therefore not entitled to another IPR move.

The Committee found that the grievor had fully exercised and completed his IPR move and that it could not be reinstated in accordance with article 14.1.03 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program directive. Notwithstanding this, the Committee also found that the grievor, to his detriment, relied upon the incomplete information provided by the DCBA himself when he accepted a posting and then only later realized that he would have to incur the costs of his relocation expenses. The Committee therefore recommended that the grievor's claim be referred to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for review in order to determine whether the grievor should be compensated for his return move on the grounds of negligent misrepresentation.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–06–23

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation and upheld the grievance, but he did not agree with the remedy recommended by the Committee. The CDS agreed with the Committee's finding and fundamentally disapproved how the grievor's CM engineered his posting: the grievor should not have been advised to use his IPR move to facilitate a regular posting, and he found that the grievor was misled in this process. For that reason, the CDS directed that the grievor's 2010 be treated as a regular posting under the auspices of the CFIRP, and that his entitlements be revised accordingly. The CDS made it clear that this should not be considered as an IPR reinstatement as defined in CFIRP. Thus, when the grievor released from the CAF some three years later, the CDS found that he was entitled to exercise a move to his IPR.

Page details

Date modified: