# 2024-032 Pay and Benefits, Intended Place of Residence, Post Living Differential, Special Commuting Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-23

The grievor's spouse had elected an Intended Place of Residence (IPR) relocation upon retirement from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). At that time, the grievor had assurance from her career manager that she would not be posted, having just been granted a period of retention. However, upon the grievor's spouse committing to the purchase of an IPR residence, the grievor was then posted to a base in proximity to the IPR residence. The grievor contested the denial of Post Living Differential (PLD) or Special Commuting Assistance (SCA) related to her posting and relocation, arguing that she received incorrect information during her relocation.

The Director general Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), found that as a service couple, the grievor and her spouse should have had their relocation administered as one relocation under the grievor's Regular Force posting. The IA stated that the grievor was ineligible to receive PLD because the residence was outside of the base's PLD area (PLDA). The IA also found that the grievor did not fit into either group eligible to receive SCA. The IA denied redress.

The Committee noted the unique circumstances of the relocation and that the CAF played a significant role in causing confusion by posting the grievor after promising not to, impacting the couple's ability to make informed relocation decisions. The Committee found that the couple should be entitled to two separate Crown-funded relocations because, at the time of the grievor's change of strength (COS) date, they were no longer a service couple due to the grievor's spouse being released. 

The Committee found that PLD could only be paid if the residence was located within a PLDA and that there was no flexibility in the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces that would allow payment of this benefit to the grievor. Concerning SCA, the Committee found that the circumstances, while different from the norm, were not dissimilar to situations that would normally entitle a member to SCA and that it would be equitable and consistent with the purpose of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive for the Final Authority (FA) to approve the payment of SCA as authorized by CFIRP Directive article 2.1.01.

The Committee recommended that the FA grant SCA retroactive to the date of the grievor's COS.