# 2015-191 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Real Estate and Legal Fees, Relocation Benefits
F&R Date: 2016–03–31
The grievor was unable to sell his principal residence on posting and decided to rent it. At the same time, he made a request for Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) adjudication regarding the purchase price of his principal residence, his eligibility for full real estate and legal fees in the disposal of his residence should he sell it, and the possibility of claiming the Real Estate Incentive (REI) if he did not sell it. After approximately 18 months without a DCBA reply, during which time the grievor sold his home, he submitted a grievance, contending that he had been aggrieved by not receiving an adjudication reply from DCBA. As redress, he sought a reply.
There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision because the IA was unable to render a decision within the permissible timeline. However, in the interim, the DCBA provided an adjudication letter in which they indicated that the grievor was not entitled to REI and was no longer entitled to reimbursement of real estate and legal fees related to the sale of his principal residence because he had rented the house.
As a preliminary matter, the Committee noted that the redress sought by the grievor was granted when he finally received the DCBA adjudication. However, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice to also consider whether the DCBA decision to deny the grievor any reimbursement on the sale of his residence was appropriate and in accordance with the applicable policy.
Agreeing with the DCBA's interpretation of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Policy (CF IRP), the Committee found, that under CF IRP Sections 8.1 and 8.2, when the grievor rented his residence he no longer qualified for sale benefits as he no longer met the occupancy requirements of the policy. The Committee also found that under CF IRP Section 8.2.14, the grievor had not applied for the REI within 15 working days after receipt of the appraisal on his residence and therefore was not entitled to the REI.
The Committee noted that the grievor had consulted with his Brookfield Global Relocation Services advisor on many occasions and had confirmed that he had a good understanding of his benefits under the CF IRP. The Committee concluded that the DCBA properly applied the policy and that the decision to deny the grievor the sale benefits was appropriate in the circumstances.
Although they recommended that the grievance be denied, the Committee also observed that the DCBA adjudication and clarification reply to the grievor took nearly three years which was entirely unacceptable. The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff acknowledge that the grievor's request for adjudication should have been handled in a much more timely fashion by DCBA. The Committee also recommended that the CF IRP adjudication procedure be overhauled so that in future, no member will have to wait three years and use the grievance process in order to obtain a simple administrative answer to their question.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2016–05–24
Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.
- Date modified: