# 2019-268 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-10-29

The grievor challenged the denial of his request for an extension of the time limits to claim relocation benefits related to the sale of his principal residence.

The Initial Authority found that the grievor was not eligible for an extension because, contrary to the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive provisions, the grievor or his dependant did not occupy the residence immediately prior to its sale.

The Committee examined the sale benefit provisions of the CFIRP Directive, which provides at article 8.1.03, that the time limit to claim sale benefits is no more than one year before or two years after the shipment of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member's household goods and effects (HG&E) to the new place of duty. As the grievor claimed sale benefits more than two years after he shipped his HG&E, the Committee found that he did not meet the policy deadline to submit the claim.

The Committee noted that the CFIRP allows extensions to time limits in exceptional circumstances. However, it did not find the grievor's decision to take his residence off the market for several months while he renovated it to equal “rare” or “extreme and unforeseen” circumstances as defined in the CFIRP Directive. Rather, the Committee found that the grievor's circumstances were more likely attributable to his lack of planning and managing his home's sale than to exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor's circumstances did not rise to the level of "exceptional" pursuant to the CFIRP. As unfortunate as the delay in selling his property was, most of the examples of exceptional circumstances are situations out of the control of the CAF member, and in the grievor's case, his decision to take the property off the market for many months for renovations played a significant part. The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the CFIRP does not require co-owners to vacate a residence in order for a CAF member to receive relocation benefits proportional to their share of ownership. The FA agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny redress.