# 2016-173 - Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Relocation Benefits

Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–10–28

The grievor submitted that he had been unfairly disadvantaged by the policy amendment announced in Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 160/14 that, effective 16 September 2014, relocation benefits would no longer be payable for local moves to an Intended Place of Residence (IPR) (40 kilometres (km) or less from door to door). He argued that the failure to provide any forewarning of the policy change was unjust as it came at a financial cost to he and his family. As redress, the grievor sought the right to grandfather all those CAF members who moved prior to the release of CANFORGEN 160/14 and allow them the benefit of a final local move at Crown expense upon their retirement.

The Committee found that the grievor did not release from the CAF until almost a year after the change in policy came into effect and thus the policy was properly applied to his situation. Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not yet chosen or initiated a move to his IPR at the time the policy came into effect and therefore, it could not be argued that the required conditions had sufficiently materialized for the grievor to have a vested right to the benefit.

The Committee noted that while the policy was in line with the framework in place in other agencies whose members were relocated at Crown expense, it was unfortunate that the removal of the move benefit had not been implemented with a transition measure to reduce the negative impact on unsuspecting CAF members.

The Committee concluded that the grievor was not entitled to receive relocation benefits for his local IPR move and recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA, the Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA confirmed that relocation benefits for local IPR moves (40km or less) were no longer funded, effective 16 September 2014, as per CANFORGEN 160/14. He confirmed the grievor's ineligibility to receive the benefit for a final move within a 40km radius of his primary residence upon retirement from the CAF. The FA found that the grievor was not covered by the four exceptions outlined in CFIRP article 14.3.10. He explained the fact that policies might change over time and that he does not have authority over such changes operated by TB.

Page details

Date modified: