Case # 2010-088

Door-to-Door Move, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Interim Lodging, Meals and Incidentals (ILM&I)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–03–10

In April 2010, the grievor was issued a posting instruction with an effective date of July 2010. In April 2010, the grievor sold his home, took his House Hunting Trip and bought a home at the new location. The grievor was unable to arrange a door-to-door move, and as a result, he spent approximately three weeks in interim lodgings. The grievor requested reimbursement of Interim Lodgings, Meals and Miscellaneous (ILM&M) expenses during this time.

The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration denied the grievor’s request for reimbursement, stating that he had made a personal choice to await a specific residence that did not allow for a door-to-door move.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision on file as the IA was unable to respond within the time limit and the grievor did not agree to grant an extension.

The Board noted that the provisions of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) and CANFORGEN 130/09 appeared to apply different standards regarding the reimbursement of additional days of ILM&M. The CF IRP allows for such reimbursement only if a door-to-door move has been unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond the CF member’s control. However, the CANFORGEN allows for reimbursement if the member can demonstrate that “every reasonable effort” was made to arrange a door-to-door move.

The Board found that the correct standard to be applied was that of the CF IRP, where reimbursement is possible if a door-to-door move is unsuccessful due to reasons beyond the member’s control. However, the Board found that this standard, as applied, was too onerous.

The Board found that the interpretation of “beyond a member’s control” should be more flexible, and that it was not unreasonable to view the circumstances in this case as being beyond the grievor’s control.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that the grievance be upheld and that CANFORGEN 130/09 be cancelled or amended to properly reflect the CF IRP.

The Board also provided a systemic recommendation, suggesting that the CDS direct the Director General Compensation and Benefits to review the policy on providing additional ILM&M on door-to-door moves, since the current policy is overly restrictive and inflexible.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–03–05

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to uphold the grievance and he directed the DGCB to recalculate the grievor's relocation benefits to include an additional 12 days of ILM&M and SIT from his Core funding envelope. The CDS expressed the view that a ''quickly moving real estate market'' alone does not meet the criterion of factors ''beyond a member's control'', but he agreed that other factors examined by the Board namely, the grievor's efforts to find a house, and also the grievor's personal situation (two dependants with special needs) met the standard required to be eligible for reimbursement of additional days of ILM&M.

The CDS also addressed the Board's systemic recommendation. Although he agreed with the synopsis prepared by the DGCFGA after the F&R that the CANFORGEN 130/09 does not expressly contradict the CF IRP, he shared the Board's concern regarding the confusion in this area, and he forwarded his decision to the CMP for a review of the wording in the CANFORGEN with a view towards resolving the issue.

Therefore, the CDS agreed that the current ILM&M policy may be denying reimbursement of legitimate relocation expenses to CF members in some circumstances. He forwarded these concerns to the DGCB for inclusion in the next CF IRP review, to ensure that the ILM&M policy meets the aim of the CF IRP to minimize any negative effects of relocation on CF members.