# 2021-192 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-02-17

The grievor contested the outstanding balance related to his relocation account. He argued that all funds he received, which were approved by the Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS), were used for legitimate relocation expenses, or related to maintaining two properties since he was experiencing difficulties selling his original primary residence. The grievor further argued that the long ordeal dealing with BGRS caused him great financial harm and had a significant and negative impact on him and his family. In his request to have his file submitted to Final Authority (FA) review, raised issue with the inadequate, contradictory, and often vague advice he received from BGRS that had caused confusion, errors, and further complicated the decisions made with respect to his relocation. The grievor also explained that BGRS incorrectly denied him reimbursement for additional home appraisals, one of which he was directed by BGRS to obtain, and that these appraisals were later used by BGRS to lower the homes appraisal value. The grievor also states that he was denied proper Temporary Dual Residency Allowance (TDRA) benefits by BGRS due to an inaccurate interpretation of policy.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits acting as Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor redress. The IA determined that the grievor in fact owed a higher amount then originally stated from a BGRS file audit conducted by the Director Relocation Business Management. The IA however acknowledged that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were aware of issues related to BGRS providing advances to members for expenses they were not entitled too.

A significant aspect of the Committee's deliberation centered on the validity of Clarification Bulletin (CB) 2010-04 as its use significantly altered eligibility for certain benefits under the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive, including TDRA benefits. The Committee found that CB 2010-04 had not received proper authorization by Treasury Board and therefore was invalid. As such, the Committee found that the listing price established for the grievor's primary residence in July 2018 was reasonable and met the intent of the policy. The Committee also found that grievor was entitled to TDRA benefits from August 2018 until his primary residence was removed from the market in April 2019. Furthermore, the Committee found that the grievor was entitled to the reimbursement for the additional home appraisal that was used by BGRS but not yet reimbursed. Finally, in relation to BGRS's mismanagement of the grievor's file, the CAF's awareness of the issues with BGRS advancing funds to members without confirming proper entitlement, and the unrealistic expectation for CAF members to become experts on a complex relocation system overnight, the Committee found that the ground for negligent representation were met.

The Committee recommended that the FA afford the grievor redress by correcting his eligibility period for TDRA and make all necessary adjustments to his file, by reimbursing him for the home appraisal that was used by BGRS but not reimbursed, and by referring the grievor's case to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for a compensation.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation and directed the Chief of Military Personnel to reopen the grievor's BGRS Relocation file to reimburse TDRA he was entitled to receive, to reimburse his second home appraisal, to provide him with a detailed and itemized list of claim categories that have an outstanding balance; and to give the grievor an opportunity to provide any receipts or a personal declaration to explain any actual and reasonable outstanding expenses.