Case # 2010-013

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2010-06-07

Upon being transferred from outside Canada, the grievor received his initial consult with Royal LePage Relocation Services regarding the level of funding he would be entitled to receive according to the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) policy in effect at the time of the briefing, rather than the one that became effective just before his posting.

Based on the new policy, the entitlement requirements for the mortgage loan insurance (MLI) on the purchase of a new home changed and the grievor no longer qualified for this benefit. Moreover,while the grievor had stayed on commercial campground with his travel trailer while moving his familly to his new post, he was informed that he was only entitled to a non-commercial lodging allowance as opposed to the reimbursement of his commercial lodging fees. According to the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA), under the CF IRP, travel trailers met the definition of non-commercial lodgings. Finally, the grievor also contested the distance and rate used to calculate his travel to new location (TNL).

The Acting Director General Compensation and Benefits (A/DGCB) partially upheld the grievance. The TNL related issues were resolved to the grievor's satisfaction. However, the A/DGCB maintained the DCBA's decision regarding the three other issues: commercial/non-commercial lodgings and the MLI expenses and denied redress.

With regards to the grievor’s commercial campground fees, the Board acknowledged that a travel trailer was listed as an example for non-commercial lodging, but noted that the list was not meant to be exhaustive. The Board concluded that in order to determine the intended meaning of a term, one must look at the actual definition provided and see if other examples and circumstances could meet the definition. In the case at hand, while a travel trailer was used as opposed to a hotel room, the grievor was charged a “predetermined rate” for services, received a receipt and the establishments used to park his trailer were opened to the public in general. Accordingly, the grievor's use of his travel trailer met the definition of commercial lodgings. Therefore, the Board found that, in the circumstances, the grievor was entitled to be reimbusered his commercial campground fees.

As for the MLI, the Board noted that the new CF IRP required members to transfer all of the equity onto the purchase of a new residence to entitle them to MLI - a condition that did not exist at the time the grievor sold the principal residence he owned prior to his transfer outside of Canada. The Board found that the grievor’s relocation could not be governed by the previous CF IRP and, therefore, he could not be reimbursed for his MLI expenses. The Board also found that the ministerial discretion could not be exercised to reimburse the grievor's MLI expenses, as doing so would provide him with a benefit that was expressly precluded by the CF IRP.

The Board recommended that the CDS partially grant the redress. More specifically, it recommended that the grievor’s commercial campground fees be considered commercial lodgings and, that he be reimbursed accordingly.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010-09-15

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommandation to partially uphold the grievance.