# 2021-051 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-10-06

The grievor explained that, as he was posted outside of Canada, he requested clarification from Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) as to whether or not he was entitled to a rental vehicle at destination as his second private motor vehicle (PMV) was being shipped. The grievor asserted that he relied on the advice of BGRS when he rented a vehicle at destination for his wife and child until his second PMV arrived. The grievor stated that he was not arguing the wording in the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive, rather he was looking for recourse due to relying on the incorrect direction provided by BGRS.

The Initial Authority (IA) relied on articles 9.3.03, 12.02 and 12.8.02 of the CFIRP Directive to deny the grievor redress. The IA explained that while the majority of the grievor's family members travelled by commercial air, the grievor elected to drive his PMV to his new location. As such, the IA concluded that the grievor's primary mode of travel was therefore not by commercial air and the grievor was not entitled to a rental vehicle at destination.

The Committee found that as the grievor still had access to one of his PMV's, he was not considered to be separated from his primary vehicle while awaiting the shipment of his second PMV. Given that the grievor did not meet the entitlement criteria under the CFIRP Directive, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to the reimbursement of the rental vehicle costs he incurred. While the Committee found that BGRS provided the grievor with inaccurate information regarding his entitlement to a rental vehicle, the Committee also found that the grievor, like all Canadian Armed Forces members, had an obligation to know his entitlements provided by the CFIRP Directive. As such, the Committee found that the grievor's case did not meet all the criteria of the Cognos test to establish detrimental reliance based on negligent representation concerning his entitlement to reimbursement of rental vehicle costs.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. Like the Committee, he found that the grievor was required to know the benefits he was entitled to despite being initially provided with erroneous information by BGRS. The Final Authority found that the grievor was not entitled to the reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the rental of a second vehicle at post.