# 2025-232 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Relocation Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-06-11

The grievor submitted a claim to Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) and subsequently requested arbitration by the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) in order to obtain reimbursement of interest incurred on a short-term loan, pursuant to article 8.3.05 of the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD). The loan had been used, in part, to finance the initial deposit required for the purchase of a newly constructed home. However, both BGRS and the DCBA denied the claim on the grounds that the interest being claimed related to the total amount of the loan, which exceeded the deposit required for the new construction. The grievor subsequently submitted a grievance, maintaining that he had previously received confirmation from BGRS that his claim was eligible. The grievor sought reimbursement of the interest on the full amount of the short-term loan or, alternatively, reimbursement of the interest attributable to the portion of the loan used to pay the initial deposit. He also requested that the CAFRD be clarified with respect to the definitions of “initial deposit” and “down payment,” and that further guidance be provided regarding the eligibility criteria applicable to the use of a loan and the role of BGRS in the process.

Acting as the Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits denied the grievor's grievance. She concluded that reimbursement of interest on a short-term loan is limited to loans obtained exclusively to cover the minimum deposit required for the purchase of a residence, and that the grievor's loan did not meet this criterion because it had been used for purposes other than the initial deposit on the newly constructed home. She also denied the request for partial reimbursement, noting that the policy does not provide for the apportionment of a loan used for multiple purposes. The IA found that the CAFRD was sufficiently clear with respect to the concept of a minimum deposit and that the applicable eligibility criteria were adequately defined. Consequently, no amendments or additional clarification were required. With respect to the role of BGRS, she reiterated that the organization provides administrative support only and has no decision-making authority regarding eligibility or reimbursement, matters that fall exclusively within the purview of the Treasury Board. She concluded that any erroneous information that may have been provided by BGRS could not justify reimbursement contrary to the policy and denied the requests to amend the policy or issue formal clarifications.

The Committee concluded that the distinction between an “initial deposit” and a “down payment” arises from the ordinary meaning of these terms in the banking and real estate sectors. A deposit is an amount paid to secure a transaction, whereas a down payment constitutes the purchaser's initial contribution toward mortgage financing. The Committee found that the CAFRD uses these terms consistently and that members are responsible for informing themselves of the eligibility requirements governing the benefits to which they may be entitled. With respect to the grievor's case, the Committee considered it plausible that BGRS had provided information regarding his eligibility. However, it noted that the requirement that the loan be used exclusively to finance the deposit is clearly stated in the Directive. The Committee further noted that the deposit had been paid from the grievor's personal funds before the loan was obtained and that the evidence on file demonstrated that the loan had been intended primarily to finance the down payment associated with the purchase of the property. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the grievor did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the policy and was therefore not entitled to reimbursement of the interest claimed. Finally, the Committee found that the CAFRD adequately sets out the conditions applicable to the reimbursement of interest on a short-term loan and that no further amendments or clarifications to the Directive were required. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress.