# 2016-121 - Real Estate and Legal Fees, Rigidity of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–07–22

The grievor, who was posted, initially put his home up for sale. Later, he decided to keep it because he had difficulties selling it and applied to receive the real estate incentive.

The Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration denied the grievor's real estate incentive claim because it had not been submitted within 15 days of receipt of the real estate appraisal.

The grievor claimed that he should nonetheless be eligible to receive the real estate incentive as a result of the exceptional circumstances regarding his posting, including the demanding nature of his next position, his ineligibility to be on imposed restriction status, a slow real estate market, and his frequent postings.

As the initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits concluded that the grievor was not entitled to the real estate incentive, as his decision to opt for it was not made within the time frame provided by article 8.2.14 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) directive. In addition, the IA noted that the factors raised by the grievor were in fact normal circumstances.

While it found that the grievor's decision to elect for the real estate incentive was not policy compliant, the Committee noted that article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP directive provides that the Treasury Board Secretariat has the power to approve reimbursement of part of or all reasonable expenses incurred that may be related to an exceptional circumstance but which are not specifically covered in the policy. Unfortunately, upon review, the Committee was not convinced that the grievor's situation was attributable to exceptional circumstances, as it was neither rare nor unanticipated. As a result, the Committee concluded that the grievor was not entitled to the real estate incentive according to the CFIRP directive.

Nevertheless, the Committee noted that the grievor's case clearly illustrates how rigid the CFIRP is and its inability to adjust to the personal circumstances of each relocated member of the CAF.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. The Committee also made a systemic recommendation to the effect that the CDS should order a review of section 8.2 of the CFIRP directive.

FA Decision Summary

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