# 2021-163 Pay and Benefits, Discrimination, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Mortgage default insurance
Discrimination, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP), Mortgage default insurance (MDI)
F&R Date: 2021-09-23
The grievor argued that he should be reimbursed the full cost of the mortgage default insurance (MDI) for his posting, despite being a renter at origin. The grievor contended that he was discriminated against in relation to his income, highlighting that other relocation policies provided benefits that are more generous to renters upon purchasing a home. As redress, the grievor requested full reimbursement of the MDI, along with a detailed calculation of how the amount in his Custom fund was determined.
The Initial Authority (IA) noted that the calculations for determining the Custom fund are outlined in the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Policy (CFIRP) Directive. The IA referred to article 8.3.10 of the CFIRP Directive and concluded that, since the grievor was a renter prior to purchasing the residence at his new posting location, the MDI reimbursement was limited to available funds in his Custom envelope. The IA determined that the grievor was treated in accordance with policy and did not afford redress.
The Committee found that, as per article 8.3.10 of the CFIRP Directive, the grievor was only eligible for reimbursement of his MDI costs from the Custom benefit.
The Committee also found that the National Joint Council Relocation Directive and the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) reimbursed the MDI benefit from a customized envelope with limited funds. In contrast, the Committee found that, for first-time homebuyers, the Compensation and Benefit Instructions for the Canadian Forces did not limit the reimbursement of the MDI benefit to a pre-calculated funding account. The Committee concluded that the Final Authority (FA) may wish to consider this funding difference in the next round of negotiations on the relocation benefits in the CAFRD.
The Committee found that, pursuant to subsection 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, level of income is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Committee recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: