# 2016-219 Pay and Benefits, Intended Place of Residence

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–07–31

The grievor was denied the reimbursement of relocation fees incurred for the residence he purchased in 2009 as his intended place of residence (IPR) on the basis that he failed to submit his claim within the six-year limitation. While the six-year limitation was only added to the 2009/2015 Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP), which was in effect starting on16 September 2014, the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration determined that the grievor was subject to it as the maximum liability period for a claim is set at six years as indicated in the Department of National Defence (DND) Financial Administration Manual (FAM).

The grievor objected, arguing that he was entitled to the reimbursement as he met the entitlement criteria of the Relocation Directive in effect when he purchased his IPR residence. He explained that the Orderly Room failed to provide him with appropriate guidance and that the applicable six-year limitation was not communicated to him in a timely manner.

The Committee found that CFIRP 2014/2015 was the applicable version in this matter. As the six-year limitation was not mentioned in CFIRP 2014/2015, the Committee observed that it was unfair to deprive the grievor of an entitlement on the basis of a limitation contained in the FAM, and not otherwise communicated or available to him. To that end, the Committee concluded that the grievor was prejudiced by the Canadian Armed Forces' failure to provide timely and adequate guidance on this issue.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance and that the grievor's entitlement be calculated in accordance with CFIRP 2014/2015, notwithstanding the six-year limitation contained in the DND FAM.

FA decision summary

The Acting CDS, acting as Final Authority (FA), disagreed with the Committee's recommendations to uphold the grievance. The FA agreed that the CFIRP 2009-2015 referred to a previous version since the grievor packed in 2009 and found that the CFIRP 2009-Active posting season 2014 was the applicable version. The FA noted that the grievor submitted his formal notification of release seven months prior to eligibility and did not request approval from his Commanding Officer to move his dependants and their household goods and effects prior to commencement of retirement leave. The FA therefore found that the grievor's IPR declaration was not valid as it did not conform to the procedures laid out in the CFIRP. The FA also clarified the question of the six-year time limitation, stating that the most recent version of the CFIRP now provides a clear explanation. The FA stated that benefits were not "rights" depending only on the completion of years of service and found that the grievor's situation did not meet the eligibility requirements for the IPR benefit.