# 2022-306 Pay and Benefits, Military Foreign Service Instruction, Relocation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-06-24

When the grievor was posted to a city in Europe with a limited rental market, he and his family had to move into the only residence proposed by the rental agency. During his virtual visits during the pandemic, the grievor had estimated a 35-minute commute from his home to his children's school. Pandemic restrictions were lifted shortly after the move, and the commute turned out to take 80 to 120 minutes instead of the expected 35 minutes. The grievor made a request to move in order to relocate his family to a residence closer to his children's school and thereby reduce the length of the commute, a request that was denied. According to the grievor, the commute had become too difficult and was affecting his children's academic performance as well as his ability to be deployed quickly. The grievor found that, given the exceptional circumstances, he had to move, which he chose to do despite his request being denied.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor had not been aggrieved because his choice to move was not beyond his control given that commute times and schools and whether they are appropriate are personal choices. According to the IA, to be eligible for a local move under paragraph 10.5.24(1) of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces, members must find themselves in a situation where it is impossible to stay in the same residence for reasons beyond their control. The grievor had had options other than virtual visits when he was looking for a residence. The IA found that the situation in the area was not exceptional and was known to the grievor.

The Committee established that paragraph 10.5.24(1) of the CBIs confers discretion in how this paragraph is applied by not specifying the circumstances in which members might be eligible. It was found that the particular circumstances had not all been taken into consideration when the request was denied even though the grievor had not been compelled to leave his residence. The Committee found that the grievor had had to leave his home for reasons beyond his control within the meaning of paragraph 10.5.24(1).

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority grant the requested redress.