# 2021-024 Pay and Benefits, Recovery of overpayment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-01-19

The grievor disputed the decision to recover relocation benefits he had previously received under section 11.2 (Unaccompanied moves) of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive on the basis that he was not unaccompanied and had travelled with a dependant. The grievor argued that he was entitled to the benefits as section 11.2 used the conjunction “and/or” that suggested a member could have an “unaccompanied” status if they were separated from either their dependant or their household goods and effects instead of requiring separation from both.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), found that the Final Authority (FA) had, in another grievance, previously determined the grievor's relocation status to be “accompanied” and had also concluded that Section 11.2 benefits would not apply to the grievor's circumstances. As the current grievance flowed from the FA's previous determination and the grievor's disagreement with elements of the FA's analysis of his circumstances, the IA concluded that the grievor's relocation status could not be reconsidered. As such, the IA refused to adjudicate the present grievance.

The Committee found that the grievor's relocation status during his move could not be considered “unaccompanied”, for the purpose of Section 11.2, as the grievor relocated with a dependant. As such, the grievor was not entitled to the benefits associated with Section 11.2. However, the Committee also found that the FA had acknowledged that the CFIRP Directive fails to address the situation of the grievor as a single parent. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the FA use the special authority available under CFIRP Directive Section 2.1.01 to direct the grievor's reimbursement.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed that the grievor was not entitled to the unaccompanied benefits he had received and that the recovery of the funds was in accordance with policy. However, she also found that his circumstances satisfied the criteria for the use of the CFIRP directive's discretionary authority and therefore she directed that DGCB reimburse the amount recovered.