# 2012-047 Pay and Benefits, Purchase of a Principal Residence, Real Estate and Legal Fees

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–08–17

The grievor was posted to a training unit in October 2007 and later remained at that unit as an instructor. In 2011, he was denied reimbursement of fees associated with the purchase of a residence on the basis that entitlement to relocation benefits related to his 2007 posting had expired in 2009.

The grievor explained he had not purchased a residence earlier as he expected to be posted out of the unit and argued that by the time he was assigned a permanent position as an instructor, the two-year time limit for claiming costs associated with the purchase of a home had elapsed. The grievor added he had been in training including two periods of temporary duty (TD) from March to September 2009 and November 2009 to June 2010 and suggested the two-year time limit should be extended by the equivalent number of days spent on TD, thus extending the time limit until after the purchase of his residence. As redress, the grievor requested reimbursement of his home purchase expenses including legal fees and building inspection costs.

Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) for active posting seasons 2006 and 2007 was the policy applicable to the case at hand. The Board noted that article 12.05 - Time Limit on Purchase, indicated clearly that the benefits associated with the purchase of replacement residence are only claimable if the residence is purchased not more than one year before or two years after the change of strength date (COS) or the date of shipment of the household goods and effects to the new place of duty, whichever is later. The grievor's COS date was 13 August 2007 and his HG&E were shipped 10 October 2007; consequently, he was entitled to the benefits associated with home purchase expenses until 10 October 2009. The grievor purchased his residence with a possession date of 7 January 2011, more than one year following the expiration of the time limit for the claimed benefits. By applying the requirements of the CF IRP 2006/2007 to the letter, there appears to be no leeway for exceptions.

The Board expressed the view that this outcome was not completely rational considering all of the circumstances; it would not have made sense for the grievor to purchase a home at that location until it was decided that he would remain as an instructor. By this time, the two-year time limit to purchase a home and to retain associated financial benefits had expired. While it is difficult for any financial scheme to deal fairly with every possible situation, the Board noted that the most recent CF IRP has been amended and now provides for an extension of the time limit for benefits related to the purchase of a property if a member is tasked outside the geographical area and the two-year time limit has not yet expired. The Board pointed out that if these new provisions could be applied to the grievor's case, the grievor's new deadline would have been 9 November 2010. Consequently, even under the new CF IRP, which provides some flexibility, the grievor would not have been able to claim the expenses for his new home, which was purchased on 7 January 2011.

The Board found that the decision to deny the grievor reimbursement for home purchase expenses was in accordance with CF IRP 2006/2007, the relevant regulations in force at the time.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–01–16

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. However, considering the lack of posting or position change message in this particular file, the CDS directed Director general - Military Careers to reiterate the obligation for career managers to produce and send a posting message when posting untrained personnel into a trained/established position.