# 2012-065 Pay and Benefits, Allowances and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–07–31

The grievor, who was posted in August 2009 from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec (QC), to Montreal, QC, had her request for Special Commuting Assistance (SCA) refused. The grievor submitted this request, signed by her Commanding Officer (CO) in Montreal, indicating that it was being made further to the grievor's posting with entitlement for relocation.

This request was refused further to a communiqué from the Director, Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) in December 2009 informing COs at all Bases, Squadrons and Area Support Units that SCA could no longer be paid to members posted to a new place of duty within the same geographical boundaries.

In September 2011, the grievor submitted a grievance stating that the communiqué of December 2009 did not apply to her situation since the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) allows members of the Canadian Forces to receive SCA in lieu of a Crown-funded relocation of their dependants, household goods and effects when they are assigned to a new place of duty and when relocation is authorized. The grievor stated that she was entitled to relocation and that she preferred to commute.

In December 2011, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, the Initial Authority in this case, denied the grievance, stating that it was submitted after the six-month time limit set out in paragraph (1) of article 7.02 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. However, in June 2012, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) accepted the grievance in the interest of justice.

The Board had to determine whether the grievor met the eligibility criteria for SCA. The first criterion for entitlement to SCA is to have received authorization for a Crown-funded relocation. The evidence in the file was not clear, as it did not contain any official authorization for relocation following the grievor's transfer from Saint-Jean to Montreal. Therefore, the Board verified the eligibility criteria for entitlement to a Crown-funded relocation. According to Chapter 209 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) on Relocation Benefits, to be entitled to a Crown-funded relocation a member must be posted from one place of duty to another and be eligible for benefits. CBI 209.80 defines a “place of duty” as the place at which a member usually performs his or her normal military duties and includes any place in the surrounding geographical area.

Thus, since Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Montreal are part of the same geographical area, the Board concluded that the grievor had not been posted to a new place of duty and that the grievor was not eligible for a Crown-funded relocation. The grievor was therefore not entitled to receive SCA.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–11–20

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied, but he did not agree with all of the Board's findings. First, in the CDS' view, the grievor's posting message clearly indicated that her move was restricted. Also, the CDS did not agree that the grievor had been posted to the same place of duty. While Saint-Jean and Montréal are areas that fall within the same geographic region, the CDS considered that a place of duty is where a CAF member usually carries out his/her normal military duties and also includes any place in the adjoining regions forming part of the location in question. The CDS determined that the amalgamation of the 3 areas, including Montréal and St-Jean, was of lesser importance than the place where the grievor was performing her military service. The CDS therefore concluded that the grievor had been posted to a new place of service when she was moved from St-Jean to Montréal. The CDS accordingly examined the distance that the grievor covered between these two areas and the requisite distance to be eligible for a move at public expenses and other relocation benefits. Since the grievor's posting was within 40 km, he concluded that she was not eligible for a move at public expense nor to the SCA.