# 2024-224 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, House Hunting Trip, Relocation Benefits, Relocation Expenses, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-06-12

The grievor challenged the decision whereby he was denied reimbursement of certain expenses related to his relocation, including house-hunting trip (HHT) expenses, additional travel expenses to his new place of duty, temporary dual residence expenses, and legal fees. He claims to have been reimbursed for the costs associated with a destination inspection trip (DIT), whereas he should have been reimbursed for the costs associated with an HHT. The grievor also reported several complications that arose during his move, including a delay by the movers and unforeseen notary fees, for which he is claiming reimbursement. Finally, he attributes the refusal of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) to grant him the temporary dual residence allowance (TDRA) to a poor appraisal of the property he was vacating, which remained unoccupied for several months.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, as initial authority, refused to review the grievance, as it was filed after the three-month time limit set out in subsection 7.06(1) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.  

The Committee found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable provisions as regards travel expenses to his new place of duty and legal representation costs. However, given the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee ruled that the grievor should have been reimbursed for the costs associated with an HHT rather than those associated with a DIT. With regard to DCBA's refusal to reimburse the TDRA, the Committee examined the rationale based on clarification bulletin 2010-4. It noted that this bulletin had no normative value and should no longer be used to establish TDRA benefits. The Committee noted that a former Chief of the Defence Staff had requested that it be deleted, specifying that any changes should be incorporated directly into the relocation directive. The Committee also stressed that the listing price of the residence and the discretionary power of the Canadian Armed Forces to accept a reasonable sale price had to be taken into account. It found that the grievor had acted in good faith throughout the process and that his home had remained continuously on the market. Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor met the conditions established by Treasury Board to benefit from the TDRA from the time he began incurring expenses related to the occupancy of two residences. The Committee therefore recommended that the Final Authority grant the grievor reimbursement of HHT and TDRA expenses for the period in question.