# 2023-072 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Intended Place of Residence, Relocation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-24

The grievor, while awaiting an Administrative Review/Medical Employment Limitations decision, moved to an Intended Place of Residence (IPR). Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) declined the grievor's claim for reimbursement of legal and real estate commission fees beyond the rates established for third-party service providers. The grievor argued that although the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) article 14.2.08 entitled them to claim moving expenses incurred prior their move being authorized, they were not allowed access to BGRS services and third-party service provider rates prior to their relocation because their move had not yet been authorized. The grievor sought redress of payment of the unreimbursed amounts.

The Initial Authority (IA) noted that that CAFRD article 14.2.08 did not grant entitlement to full reimbursement of all expenses but permits entitlement in accordance with applicable limitations. The IA found that because the grievor decided to conduct an early IPR move, they were not authorized to access pre-negotiated third-party service provider rates at the time of relocation.

The Committee received confirmation from the Canadian Armed Forces that third-party service provider rates were not made widely available because they are a confidential part of the competitive procurement process of the relocation service provider contract. The Committee noted that the IA freely confirmed that the real estate commission fee was capped at a certain percentage by province and found it difficult to understand why such a generic, province-wide rate would need to be protected. The Committee stated that if members have an entitlement to reimbursement of relocation expenses incurred before being formally authorized a move, they should be able to access any limits put on reimbursable amounts. The Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved by the withholding of information that capped their reimbursement. 

However, the Committee found that although aggrieved, the grievor had been reimbursed in accordance with the CAFRD and there was no flexibility or mechanism to reimburse the remaining expenses. As such, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.