# 2025-111 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Household Goods and Effects, Interim Lodging, Meals and Incidentals

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-04-16

When the grievor was posted back to Canada from an outside of Canada location, the shipment of their household goods and effects (HG&E) was delayed for an extended period due to contractor-related issues. Although he was reimbursed for lodging throughout the delay, meal allowances were limited to 45 days, comprising the full basic entitlement and a partial supplemental period. In his grievance, the grievor maintained that, due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control, he should receive an additional 30 days of meal allowance for himself and his two dependents, covering days 45 to 75, during which time he was separated from his HG&E.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance on the basis that the grievor had already received the maximum meal allowance permitted under subsection 12.2.01 of the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD). The IA stated that there was no authority to extend the allowance or modify benefits beyond those approved by Treasury Board (TB) policy. It was further noted that while feedback could inform future policy improvements, any revisions to CAFRD policy would require submission to and approval by TB.

The Committee explained that TB, through its 7 October 2004 letter on the Delegation of Authority to Departments, has given departments (including the Canadian Armed Forces) the authority to approve exceptions or extensions to certain Treasury Board Secretariat policies, such as the CAFRD, when unusual circumstances exist. However, the Committee stated that this delegated authority is not unlimited. It cannot be used to bypass policy limits that are otherwise reasonable and justified. After reviewing the facts of the case, the Committee determined that the grievor's situation fell within the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by the delegation. As a result, the Committee found the grievor aggrieved and concluded that it would be reasonable and appropriate to apply the delegated authority in this case to address the grievor's situation, without improperly circumventing policy limits.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) grant redress to the grievor by extending meal eligibility to cover the full period during which he was without his HG&E. Alternatively, if the FA is not prepared to exercise discretion in this manner, the Committee recommended that the grievor be permitted to submit a list of sundry items, supported by receipts or a statutory declaration, that were required for meal preparation, for the purpose of reimbursement.