# 2021-193 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Relocation benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-09-15

The grievor contested the decision made by the Director Compensation Benefits Administration to deny his claim for miscellaneous expenses incurred as a result of his posting outside of Canada being canceled at the last minute. These expenses included the cost of a home appraisal completed prior to the posting cancellation, penalties for breaking a property management contract and cancelling a lease signed with future tenants. In addition, the grievor argued that he should receive compensation for the loss of income for his spouse and for the loss of rental income and that he should receive the posting allowance, due to the serious financial hardship that was placed on his family.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits acting as Initial Authority offered the grievor partial redress and found that the grievor should be reimbursed for the cost of the home appraisal, as it was an actual and reasonable expense incurred by the grievor prior to the posting cancellation.

The Committee found that the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive (CFIRP Directive) contains a specific provision related to entitlements following a posting cancellation. Specifically, the Committee found that according to article 2.4.01 of the CFIRP Directive, members are entitled to the reimbursement for all actual and reasonable expenses incurred prior to the posting cancellation. In addition, article 2.4.02 of the CFIRP Directive states that there shall be no loss or gain from any transactions due to the cancellation of their posting. As such, the Committee found that the CFIRP Directive entitled the grievor to be reimbursed the cost of the home appraisal, the penalties for breaking the lease agreement, and for the property management fees. The Committee also found that there was no provision within the CFIRP Directive or other relevant Canadian Armed Forces policy to entitle the grievor to compensation for his spouse's claimed loss of income or for the loss of potential rental income. In addition, the Committee found that as the grievor did not actually sell his primary residence or relocate, that he was not entitled to the real estate incentive or posting allowance. Finally, the Committee found that the grievor' situation did not meet the requirements for an ex gratia payment as this would be filling a policy gap.

The Committee therefore recommended the Final Authority grant redress by reimbursing the grievor for the costs incurred by the home appraisal, for the property management fee and for the penalty for breaking the lease on his primary residence.