# 2022-106 Pay and Benefits, Relocation Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-12-20

After completing basic training, the grievor was posted to a first place of duty outside the geographical area of her place of enrolment. Since she believed she was entitled to relocation benefits to her first place of duty, and the daily commute involved a long distance and a long travel time between her residence and place of duty, the grievor put her house up for sale and moved less than 40 kilometres from her original residence, contrary to the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) directive. The grievor argued that special conditions applied to her and that these should have been taken into account when calculating the distance. The grievor expressed that she had been badly advised and had not received the necessary support from Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) on more than one occasion.

The initial authority (IA) determined that the grievor was not entitled to the relocation benefits claimed under the CFIRP, as her move was less than 40 kilometres from her original residence. The IA stated that it had no discretionary power and did not apply any special considerations to the distance calculation.

The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to relocation benefits under the CFIRP directive. The Committee found that the Canadian Armed Forces had a responsibility to continue to support its members even if personnel had been reduced during the pandemic, since they continued to post personnel from one unit to another. The Committee also found that BGRS, as a service provider, owed a duty of care to the grievor, who discharged her responsibilities by attempting to register for and inquire about relocation benefits on more than one occasion. BGRS thus failed in its responsibilities as a service provider. Consequently, the Committee was of the opinion that the grievor's file met the five criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cognos for compensation to be granted when damages result from negligent misrepresentation. In the event that the final authority (FA) did not agree to this compensation, the Committee concluded that the FA should consider an ex gratia payment in the circumstances.

The Committee recommended that the FA forward the grievor's file to the Director, Claims & Civil Litigation, with its support. In the event that the FA declined to support the grievor's reimbursement claim based on the negligent misrepresentation, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff consider using their authority to grant an ex gratia payment to the grievor.