# 2012-134 Pay and Benefits, Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Promissory Estoppel, Separation Expense (SE)
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–01–18
The grievor, who was granted early election of his intended place of residence in 2000, was authorized separation expense benefits upon being posted to Ottawa in 2009. A few months into his posting, the grievor was informed that he had been approved separation expense benefits in error, due to the fact he had elected an early IPR in 2000, and that recovery action was required. Having signed further terms of service following his early election of an intended place of residence, the grievor argued that any posting to a new location, while on new terms of service, should trigger new entitlement to benefits.
The Canadian Forces Grievance Board (the “Board”) first examined the decision to grant the grievor a move to an intended place of residence in 2000. The grievor was six years from the end of his terms of service at the time of his request and had neither received notice of nor applied for release, conditions prescribed Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 209-30. In the absence of any of the two conditions being present, the Board concluded that the grievor's early intended place of residence move should never have been approved. However, due to the fact that it was erroneously authorized and the grievor acted in good faith, the Board was of the opinion that the Crown should be estopped from recovering the costs associated with the grievor's move to an early intended place of residence. The Board also commented that, in its opinion, article 14.5.06 of the 2009 Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program made it clear that the limitations for future relocation benefits for a member who had elected and been authorized an intended place of residence move, were for the member's current terms of service. Therefore, the Board agreed with the grievor that any new terms of service would re-instate a member's entitlement to future relocation benefits.
Having found that the grievor's early intended place of residence should not have been granted and the grievor's posting should be treated as if the early intended place of residence move had never occurred, the Board reviewed whether the grievor was entitled to separation expense. The Board found that the grievor met the requirements set out in Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 209.997(2) and (5) when he was posted and was, therefore, entitled to separation expense benefits for its duration. This finding was based on the fact that the grievor was married with children and his dependants had not been moved at Crown expense and moving the grievor's dependants, upon his posting, would have caused educational and financial disruption to the family
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–02
The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be upheld and the grievor be authorized to retain the SE benefits while he was on a restricted posting. However, the CDS did not agree with the Board's approach by treating the grievor's case as if the early intented place of residence (IPR) had never occurred: he was satisfied that the grievor was appropriately authorized by DCBA to exercice his IPR. The CDS found that CF IRP 2009 is the applicable policy, since the grievor was posted in 2009. Therefore, based on section 14.5.06 of CF IRP 2009, the CDS concluded that there was no limitation on the payment of SE benefits to a member who is granted a new term of service and is subsequently posted and authorized to be on IR.
Page details
- Date modified: