# 2024-173 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Household Goods and Effects, Relocation Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-20

The grievor contended that the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration erred in denying relocation benefits solely because his new residence was not 40 km closer to his new place of duty, without considering the operational requirements of his role. The grievor maintained that his move to a new residence was necessary to support a better work-family balance. He argued that the new residence was located within the geographical area of a Canadian Forces Base (CFB), unlike his previous home, and allowed for more reasonable travel times. He explained that the previous situation was causing undue harm to his family, citing increased stress and a lack of support from the Canadian Armed Forces. As redress, he sought reimbursement for relocation expenses related to his move.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with Treasury Board (TB) approved policy and denied the grievance. The IA determined that, because the grievor had not relocated 40 km or more from his original residence, he did not qualify for relocation benefits. While the IA acknowledged the circumstances of the grievor's situation and the financial loss he incurred, it concluded that it did not have the authority to alter the TB-approved policy, enhance its benefits, or grant a one-time exception.

The Committee concluded that the grievor was not entitled to relocation benefits, as he did not meet the minimum requirement set out in the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD), which required a move of at least 40 km closer to the new permanent workplace. Although the grievor moved closer to a CFB, the distance between his two residences was only 30 to 35 km, short of the 40 km threshold. The grievor had been aware of this requirement and chose to proceed with the move regardless. When he became eligible for a funded move, he had requested to remain in his current residence and receive Special Commuting Assistance (SCA), which he was approved for, but this decision forfeited his entitlement to relocation benefits under the Compensation and Benefits Instructions. The Committee also found no evidence that the grievor was unable or required to move the full 40 km, particularly since he had already been authorized to live outside the geographical boundary of the CFB and receive SCA. As per CAFRD policy, it was the grievor's responsibility to understand the conditions and limitations of his relocation entitlements, and by choosing to move a shorter distance, he disqualified himself from receiving reimbursement.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.