# 2025-099 Pay and Benefits, Real Estate Incentive - Time limit for signing the waiver electing not to sell

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-01-28

The grievor submited that he was denied the Real Estate Incentive (REI) benefit due to deficiencies in the relevant section of the current Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) policy, which he maintains unduly restricts members' flexibility and effectively penalizes those who change from an intent to sell to a decision to rent their primary residence. He argued that the 15-working-day time limit linking the first reimbursed appraisal to the election of the REI is illogical, given that appraisals may be obtained for multiple purposes, and that this requirement unfairly excludes members whose circumstances evolve. He further maintained that decisions to sell or retain a residence are often driven by factors beyond a member's control, such as unfavourable market conditions, high interest rates, or personal and professional considerations, and that the policy financially discriminates against members affected by such factors. As redress, he requested payment of the REI benefit in accordance with subsection 8.2.03 of the CAFRD.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), determined that the grievor had not been aggrieved and denied redress, finding that the REI provisions of subsection 8.2.03 of the CAFRD were applied correctly. The IA concluded that although the grievor's principal residence was appraised and the appraisal reimbursed from the Core Account, the grievor did not elect the REI within the required 15 working days, and therefore did not meet all eligibility criteria for the benefit. The IA further noted that while concerns regarding policy limitations and flexibility are acknowledged and considered through ongoing policy review processes, there is no authority to amend or create entitlements outside Treasury Board-approved policy, and the prescribed time limits for the REI election must be applied as written.

The Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved. The Committee explained that the applicable provisions of the CAFRD are clear and unambiguous, and do not confer discretionary authority on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with respect to their application. As such, the CAF is obligated to implement the policy as written. In this case, the grievor's entitlements were administered strictly in accordance with the CAFRD, and there is no evidence of inconsistent or improper application of the policy.

While the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant redress, it further recommended that the re-examination of the policy be given serious consideration and that a formal mechanism be established to ensure members' clear understanding of its requirements. The Committee emphasized that the intent of the CAFRD provisions was to permit members either to sell their principal residence and receive the associated sale benefits or to retain the residence and elect the REI benefit; however, the Committee found that, as currently structured, the policy did not consistently achieve this intent, as in certain circumstances members received neither benefit.