# 2016-021 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–04–25

The grievor was relocated under the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) for a period of Class B Reserve Service (Cl B Res Svc). On completion of that service he was entitled to a return move to his original location or to a third location. Without the grievor's knowledge, his headquarters sought and received Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) authorization for a return move to his original location whereas it had been his intent to move to a third location.

Since the costs were less than a return move to the original location, Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) moved the grievor to the third location. According to BGRS, the grievor had not submitted his moving claim on time as requested and initiated recovery of the claim advance. The DCBA cancelled the return move authorization stating he did not have the authority to move to a third location.

The grievor argued that pursuant to CFIRP 13.09, the authorization to relocate for his Cl B Res Svc includes the necessary authority for a return move to the original location or to a third location; his relocation was not complete until he sold his primary residence, and he had until after his house was sold to submit his claim.

As redress, the grievor requested that authorization for his relocation be reinstated and that he be reimbursed for all outstanding relocation benefits.

The Initial Authority explained that since the CFIRP did not explicitly provide time limits for the submission of claims on a return or third location move, the one-year limit contained in Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) 203.05 (Delay in Submission of Claims) applied. The IA found that the grievor's claim submission was outside this limit and denied the grievance.

The Committee found that the grievor was not required to seek further authority for a move to a third location.

The Committee was of the view that the CFIRP 13.09 stating “should” rather than “shall” signals that it is desired that the move be completed within one year but that it is not mandatory. The Committee also found that the CFIRP lacked guidance with respect to the completion of a reservist's relocation.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be upheld and the grievor be reimbursed for his relocation expenses on his return move to a third location.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed for his relocation expenses on his return move to a third location. The CDS agreed with the Committee that the CFIRP Directive does not make time provisions for the case of a reservist who is eligible for relocation benefits on termination of a period of service. The CFIRP 13.09 of is the only relevant guidance in this situation in that stating that a return move re!ocation should be completed within one year.