# 2016-217 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Real Estate and Legal Fees

Case summary

F&R Date: 2017–04–27

The grievor completed his basic occupational training and proceeded from his place of enrollment to his first posting to a new place of duty while on imposed restriction (IR) status. Throughout this posting, the grievor remained on IR status and, during the posting, he purchased a house at his place of enrollment. The grievor was subsequently posted to a new place of duty where he also proceeded on IR status. When his restriction was lifted, he requested authorization from the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) for a relocation at public expense from his place of enrollment to the location of his second posting.

The DCBA authorized a limited move at public expense of the grievor's household goods and effects (HG&E) from his place of enrollment to his new place of duty, under article 11.1.02 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) directive; however, the grievor was denied a move at public expense of his dependants and the sale benefits for his house located in his place of enrollment as the DCBA deemed the house to be in a “third location” as per article 9.01 of the CF IRP.

The initial authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, rejected the grievance on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the three-month time limit set out in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, article 7.06. However, the file was accepted for adjudication at the final authority level in the interests of justice.

The Committee first found that article 9.01 of the CF IRP does not limit the grievor's entitlement to relocation benefits. Rather, since the grievor had not exercised his relocation benefits from his place of enrollment, his entitlements were entirely governed by chapter 11 of the CF IRP. The Committee concluded that since the grievor's dependants and his HG&E had remained at his place of enrollment, he remained entitled to his first move cost.

The Committee then considered the grievor's entitlement to a move of his dependants at public expense and to benefits related to the sale of his principal residence. The Committee found that the grievor's spouse and child met the definition of “dependant” from section 1.4 of the CF IRP at the time of their move, and as such, were entitled to a move at public expense. The Committee also found that the grievor's house met the definition of “principal residence” from section 1.4 of the CF IRP and that the grievor met the occupancy requirement from article 8.2.02 of the CF IRP, therefore, he was entitled to the benefits associated with the sale of his residence.

The Committee recommended that the grievor be fully reimbursed for the cost of moving his dependants and that he receive benefits related to the sale of his principal residence as well as any other relocation benefits to which he is entitled as per chapter 11 of the CF IRP directive.

.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor had never been moved at public expense from his residence and that he was entitled to a move to the new posting location. The CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed for the real estate and legal fees on the sale of his residence and he also directed that an audit be conducted to determine if the grievor received all benefits he was entitled to.