# 2024-319 Pay and Benefits, Attach Posting Benefits, Canadian Forces Housing Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-18

The grievor challenged the decision to deny his entitlement to the Canadian Forces Housing Differential (CFHD) while he was posted to Petawawa but immediately attached posted to Toronto, where he was already residing. He sought entitlement to CFHD for the duration of his attached posting, citing the intent of the allowance and the fact that he maintained a residence in the Greater Toronto Area while it served as his place of duty. He argued that Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 205.453 did not specifically address attached postings, thereby leaving room for interpretation regarding eligibility in such circumstances.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance based on paragraph 205.453(3) of the CBI, which stipulates that, in order to be eligible for CFHD, a member must be posted to a new place of duty and establish a new permanent residence at that location. The IA stated that because the grievor did not establish a new permanent residence in Petawawa, there is no entitlement for the CFHD allowance while attached posted to Toronto. 

The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to CFHD. After reviewing the definitions in CBI 1.28 and the entitlement conditions outlined in paragraph 205.453(3), the Committee determined that the attached posting was temporary in nature and did not constitute a new permanent place of duty. As the grievor was expected to return to his home unit following the assignment, Toronto was not considered his permanent workplace for the purposes of CFHD entitlement. While the grievor was not entitled to CFHD during his attached posting to Toronto, the Committee noted that he was eligible for allowances under the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.