Case # 2008-058

Administration of Imposed Restriction and Separation Expense

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2009–07–31

In 1996, the grievor was posted to St-Hubert and was relocated at public expense in Chambly. In 2003, the grievor relocated at his own expense in Vaudreuil-Dorion which was still in the same geographical area as Chambly. In 2006, the grievor was posted to the St-Jean geographical area and was placed on an imposed restriction (IR) until July 2010. As a result, the grievor became entitled to benefits such as separation expense (SE).

As a result of changes in the geographical areas in 2008, the grievor was informed that he was no longer entitled to IR and associated benefits. Consequently, the grievor submitted a grievance contesting the decision. While reviewing the grievor’s submission, the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration determined that the grievor should never have been placed on IR because Chambly, where he was previously relocated at public expense, was less than 40 kilometres away from his new place of duty and, consequently, he should not have been entitled to a move at public expense. Hence, all benefits paid so far had to be recovered as they constituted an overpayment.

The Board found that upon his posting to St-Jean in 2006, the grievor’s principal residence was the one in Vaudreuil-Dorion and, therefore, he was entitled to relocation benefits in accordance with the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program 2006.

The Board found that since the grievor was entitled to relocation at public expense, it was reasonable for the career manager to use his discretion and place him on IR from April 2006 to July 2010.

The Board found that the fact the geographical areas were modified should not penalize CF members like the grievor whose personal situation did not change. The Board also found that the grievor should have remained on IR and received the associated benefits after the geographical area was redefined.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff to uphold the grievance.

Systemic recommendation

The Board recommended the review of the IR and SE policies to reconcile the differences in terms of approval authorities of those benefits.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–07–07

The CDS did not agree with the Board's findings and its recommendation to uphold the grievance.