# 2024-098 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Relocation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-11

The grievor disputed the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA)'s denial of his reimbursement request for reimbursement of the costs to move his Household Goods and Effects (HG&E). While the grievor believed he relinquished his rights to his relocation benefit when he was required to sign a Statement of Understanding (SOU) to live ashore, his request to travel to move his HG&E himself was denied due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, he was compelled to hire a third-party moving company. DCBA denied reimbursement as the grievor did not go through the Household Goods Removal Service contract pursuant to article 9.01 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive applicable at the time. As redress, the grievor requested reimbursement of the third-party moving company costs.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as Initial Authority, rejected the grievance as having been submitted beyond the time limit prescribed at article 7.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

The Committee found that, at the time the grievor signed the SOU to live ashore, he had not completed his basic military occupation training to attain his Occupationally Functional Point (OFP) and was therefore not entitled to a move of HG&E at public expense. It was not explained to the grievor, a junior and untrained member, that signing the SOU did not change his CFIRP directive entitlements, it was simply a recognition that he was not eligible to reimbursement at that moment. The Committee noted that when the grievor completed the training and reached OFP, he was posted to the same geographical area but became entitled to a move of HG&E from his place of enrolment. As this was at the onset of the pandemic, he was not provided access to relocation services and was not assisted in that regard by his chain of command. Given this and the denial of leave, the Committee found that the Canadian Armed Forces' actions compelled the grievor to hire a third party or risk losing his HG&E which had to be moved from where they had been stored upon his enrolment. The Committee determined that redress could not be granted under the policy and recommended affording the grievor redress through an ex gratia payment.