# 2023-019 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Relocation Expenses

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-09-12

The grievor decided to travel to his new place of duty on imposed restriction status and found accommodation online. Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) informed the grievor that he may be entitled to a destination inspection trip (DIT) with chain of command approval in accordance with provision 4.2.04 of the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD). After making a DIT without prior authorization, the grievor was denied reimbursement of DIT-related expenses. According to the grievor, the necessary documentation was not available on the Military Personnel Command (MPC) site at the time of his checks, and the information received from BGRS confirmed that he was entitled to a DIT. The grievor claimed that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had been negligent in managing his relocation file. 

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that the grievor had not been aggrieved and, considering that the grievor was proceeding with an unaccompanied relocation, he was not eligible for reimbursement of expenses under CAFRD 11.2.07. According to the IA, the information was available elsewhere other than on the MPC website. The IA considered that, although the grievor may have been misled, it was not in a position to commit public funds to compensation to which the grievor was not entitled.    

The Committee established that article 11.2.07(3) clearly states that there is no right to a DIT in the case of an unaccompanied move, which was the grievor's case. The Committee believes that, given the situation, as well as his level of experience in the CAF, the grievor should have understood his benefit entitlements, or at least should have been able to conduct additional research to consult the directive elsewhere on other sites. Finally, the Committee notes that, although BGRS provided erroneous advice to the grievor, the advisor did mention that approval was required, and she also provided the necessary documentation. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the redress requested.