# 2018-018 Pay and Benefits, Separation Expense

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-07-11

In 2013 and again in 2016, the grievor received posting instructions for which the relocation of his dependents and the move of his household goods was subject to an imposed restriction (IR). For the first posting, the personnel responsible for administering IR authorized the grievor to rent a residence with two bedrooms, as there were no one-bedroom residences available at the place of duty. Accordingly, the member received separation expenses (SE). In preparation for the second posting, the personnel responsible for administering IR confirmed that he could again rent a two-bedroom residence at his new place of duty, on the condition that the rent did not exceed the maximum monthly allowance. In August 2016, upon the grievor's transfer, IR personnel at his new place of duty noted that his residence had more than one bedroom, and as a result, the member was not eligible for SE. IR personnel authorized the grievor to keep his residence pending resolution. In December 2016, the personnel administration section requested clarifications from the Director - Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA), who confirmed that the residence did not meet the SE eligibility criteria, that the grievor had to move, and that they must recover the SE payments.

The grievor maintained that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had confirmed that he could rent a residence with more than one bedroom at his new place of duty, and that he and the administrative officer had agreed that he could keep his residence for the term of the lease. Accordingly, he requested that SE be paid for the entire period during which he lived in that residence, in addition to the penalty he was required to pay on breaking the lease, as well as interest on those amounts.

The claims section at the grievor's new place of duty stated that the grievor should not be held responsible for the incorrect information he received at his previous place of duty. DCBA personnel stated that the CAF could not pay SE, because the residence did not meet eligible residence criteria. The Director General - Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, denied the grievance on the grounds that the residence did not meet the criteria for payment of SE.

The Committee concluded that the residence, which had more than one bedroom, did not meet the eligibility criteria for payment of SE. However, the Committee also concluded that the grievor was misinformed when seeking a residence at his new place of duty. Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the administration personnel at the new place of duty took a great deal of time before taking steps to correct the situation. The Committee recommended referral to the Director - Claims and Civil Litigation for consideration of a claim against the Crown.

FA decision summary

The Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS) agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor had been aggrieved, but disagreed with its recommendations that the matter be referred to Director Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL) and—if DCCL concluded there was no civil liability—that the A/CDS consider an ex gratia payment. The A/CDS acknowledged the Committee's assertion that a payment under Compensations and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) article 208.801 (Special Powers of the Minister – Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses) would be inappropriate in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the A/CDS stated that the grievor's situation satisfied the requirements of article 208.801 and directed that the separation expense payments that had been recovered from the grievor be returned to him. The A/CDS also directed that the grievor be reimbursed the penalty for breaking his lease, pursuant to CBI article 208.955.