# 2022-255 Pay and Benefits, Imposed Restriction, Negligent Misrepresentation, Relocation Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-12-08

The grievor was posted on a 10 month Imposed Restriction (IR) with the move of his dependents, household goods and effects ((D)HG&E) restricted. The grievor was unable to secure a 10-month lease at the destination, and inquired with Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) regarding his eligibility to claim the additional two months before his IR posting if he secured a 12-month lease. The grievor claimed BGRS advised that Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) article 7.04, Rent in Advance of Move, applied and approved an advance of funds for two months of rent preceding his posting. Once at destination, the grievor was informed by BGRS that article 7.04 did not apply and subtracted the advanced funds from his claim for reimbursement. 

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that article 7.04 of the CAFRD did not apply to the grievor's circumstances because his dependents remained at his old residence, and he therefore had not vacated it. The IA found that the grievor's situation was covered by article 11.2.08 of the CAFRD, which provides that unaccompanied members' accommodation benefits are prescribed by Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 208.997, Separation Expense, but that the grievor was not entitled to this benefit because he was not separated from his (D)HG&E during his IR posting. The IA denied redress.

The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to reimbursement under article 7.04 of the CAFRD because he had not vacated his old residence and had no intent to do so. The Committee further found that the grievor was not covered under article 11.2.08 of the CAFRD, which would entitle the grievor to benefits while separated from his (D)HG&E under CBI 208.997, because the grievor was not separated from his (D)HG&E during the IR posting. The Committee subsequently found that the grievor was not entitled to any reimbursement for the two months preceding the date on which he moved to his new place of duty. 

The Committee also found that the test for negligent misrepresentation was not met because the grievor had already accepted that he could not secure a 10-month lease before he spoke with BGRS and he would have incurred the expenses regardless of BGRS' advice. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.