# 2015-227 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Expenses, Relocation of Dependants

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Expenses, Relocation of Dependants

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–12–16

The grievor was posted to the United States and, while there, married an American citizen. His next posting was back in Canada. As a result, the grievor and his spouse incurred expenses related to his spouse's immigration to Canada, including a medical examination, health care coverage, and fees for a permanent resident visa. The grievor requested compensation of these expenses through the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) since, in his view, they were relocation costs for him and his dependant spouse, and to do otherwise would amount to discrimination on the basis of national origin.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance. He stated that the CF IRP, a Treasury Board approved policy, did not allow for the reimbursement of the expenses related to the grievor's spouse entering Canada as a foreigner. With respect to the grievor's allegations of discrimination, the departmental authority found no evidence that the grievor had been treated differently than any other member, or that he would otherwise be entitled to further benefits.

The Committee reviewed the CF IRP in light of the expenses that the grievor requested be reimbursed. On all accounts, the Committee found that the expenses were not reimbursable under the CF IRP. The Committee further found that the expenses were not linked to the grievor's relocation back to Canada but related to his wife's immigration to Canada. The Committee noted that the spouse had to submit to the legislative and regulatory conditions required to enter Canada, just as any other foreign national wanting to enter the country.

The Committee reviewed the grievor's allegations of discrimination, and found that the fact the grievor's spouse was an American citizen and subject to legitimate immigration requirements does not amount to discrimination.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–03–22

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.

Page details

Date modified: