# 2025-019 Pay and Benefits, Imposed Restriction, Separation Expense

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-14

The grievor contested the policy pertaining to Separation Expense (SE), asserting that deficiencies within the policy led to a personal financial loss. The grievor contended that Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members on Imposed Restriction (IR) status are required to lease accommodations on a monthly basis and, in the province of Ontario, must provide a 60-day notice to terminate their tenancy. As a result, when a member on IR status ends their personal relationship, they cannot notify their chain of command in a timely manner and provide their landlord due notice without facing the loss of one month's rent. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance stating that, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 208.997(5)(j), there is no entitlement to SE when the IR expires or is otherwise ceased by the appropriate posting authority. The IA determined that the CAF had ceased the grievor's SE in accordance with CBI 208.997 and there was no provision to extend SE based on a clause in a rental agreement.

The Committee noted that pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the National Defence Act, Pay and Allowances, Treasury Board (TB) has sole authority to determine and regulate the payment of allowances in respect to expenses and conditions arising out of CAF members' service. The TB does so in part by enacting the CBI and the provisions governing SE benefits are found at CBI 208.997. The Committee further noted that pursuant to the applicable policy, the practice was to cease the SE benefits at the end of the month where a member no longer meets the eligibility criteria. Accordingly, the grievor's change in personal circumstances led to the recovery of SE benefits paid to which he was no longer entitled. The Committee determined that, although policies may offer CAF members options to address their personal needs, public funds shall not be provided in all circumstances and must be recovered if paid without entitlement. The Committee found no evidence that the grievor was misled about the policy which provides benefits as long as a CAF member has a principal residence at their former place of duty occupied by a dependant and their move remains prohibited or restricted. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.