# 2021-266 Pay and Benefits, Additional car rental costs

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-12-21

The grievor rented a vehicle for his house hunting trip. His subsequent claim was capped at the daily rate set out in the Accommodations and Car Rental Directory (ACRD), leaving approximately $2,800 unreimbursed. The grievor argued that prior to booking the rental vehicle, he had confirmed with a Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) representative that the quote he received would be reimbursed as long as a receipt was provided.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, rejected the grievance because it was filed outside the prescribed time limit. The Acting Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (A/DCBA) denied the grievor's request for a decision regarding reimbursement of additional rental vehicle expenses. The A/DCBA found that Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive, article 2.7.01, provides that reimbursement for service shall not exceed pre-negotiated rates. The A/DCBA also noted that the grievor rented a pick-up truck when he was entitled to rent a min-van. 

The Committee first found that the type of vehicle was inconsequential to the grievance. The grievor's original booking request was for a minivan and the rental vehicle agency provided the higher cost pick-up truck at the same rate quoted for a minivan. The Committee noted that the ACRD provides car rental services to Government of Canada employees at guaranteed rates and that the rate secured by the grievor at booking was significantly higher than the ACRD rate. The Committee found that the grievor should not have been expected to know about the applicability of the ACRD and that the BGRS representative gave the grievor false assurance that his vehicle rental claim would be reimbursed, no matter the cost. The Committee recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces intervene to resolve the overcharge by the rental car agency on behalf of the grievor, in accordance with the standing offer. Alternatively, the Committee recommended that the grievor's case be forwarded to the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation. 

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, did not agree with all the Committee's findings and did not agree with its recommendation to provide the grievor redress. The FA was of the view that the CAF could not intervene to resolve the overcharge by the rental company on the grievor's behalf. The FA explained that according to subsection 2.7.01 of the CFIRP, the “reimbursement for services provided shall not exceed pre-negotiated rates were the third-party supplier has been engaged by the service provider as part of the tendering process.” Based on the same provision, the FA also states that “CF members may choose their own third-party suppliers not included in the directory of third-party suppliers provided they are at arm's length.” In this case, the third-party supplier engaged by BGRS in the Directory could have contacted them to inquire about a reimbursement of the exceeding fees of the pre-negotiated rates. However, since the third-party supplier did not have any pre-negotiated rate for a minivan at the airport, BGRS simply could seek reimbursement for any overcharges. Furthermore, the FA found that pursuant to section 3 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 7004-0 and 7004-1, BGRS is a private corporation the Public Services and Procurement Canada engaged under contracts for services, not Crown servants, and BGRS cannot be considered an agent or servant of the Crown. Therefore, the FA found that the Crown would not be liable for negligent misrepresentation by BGRS. In this case, it was BGRS, the Service provider, who may be liable for negligent misrepresentation as they did not rely on inaccurate information provided by the CAF. Hence, the FA concluded that the grievor can file a claim against BGRS directly for negligent misrepresentation, if he wishes so.