# 2012-004 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Release - Benefits,...
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012–03–15
While serving overseas, the grievor requested a posting back to Canada for release purposes. In accordance with article 12.9.01 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) 2009, the grievor was entitled to a relocation back to Canada without electing her intended place of residence (IPR) benefit provided she relocated within “proximity” of a Base with release capability. CANFORGEN 219/08 further defined “proximity” as not further than 250 km from a Base with release capability. The grievor acknowledged that she would be relocating outside the 250 km distance but was willing to sign a waiver stating that she would not claim any financial benefits over and above the entitlements owing were she relocating no further than 250 km.
The Relocation Adjudication Section (RAS) of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration denied the grievor’s request stating that her situation did not meet the intent of the CF IRP 2009. The RAS pointed out that the grievor’s choice of location was well outside the geographical boundaries of the releasing Base and therefore not in “proximity” to the Base as required under the applicable policy.
The grievor relocated back to Canada by electing her IPR and subsequently submitted a grievance objecting to the RAS decision and seeking to have her IPR benefit reinstated.
The Director General Compensation and Benefits, the initial authority in this matter, denied the grievance, concluding that the grievor had received the benefits to which she was entitled under the CF IRP 2009, given that she had relocated to a distance greater than 250 km from the nearest Base with a release capability.
The Board found that article 12.9.01 of the CF IRP 2009 - Relocation back to Canada for release purposes – the applicable policy in this case, was ambiguous since it used the term “proximity” without defining its exact meaning within the policy. The Board noted that the Canadian Forces (CF) had initially defined the term “proximity” to mean within 500 km of a Base with release capability and shortly thereafter reduced it to the current 250 km distance. The Board also noted that the RAS had, in its reply to the grievor, effectively introduced a third possible distance to define the term “proximity” – that being “within the geographical boundaries of a Base with releasing capability”.
During its investigation of the file, the Board confirmed that the grievor’s new residence was located 520 km from the nearest Base with a release capability. As a result, the Board found that the grievor would not be entitled to the benefit under any of the three interpretations of the term “proximity”.
The Board suggested that the CF consider employing the geographical boundaries of a Base to define the term “proximity” in the CF IRP, given that the intent of the benefit is to offer CF members an opportunity to relocate back to Canada and take their release from a CF Base as do other CF members serving in Canada at the time of their release.
The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–04–22
The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied since the grievor did not meet the criteria for “release capability at proximity “. The CDS found that the grievor chose to relocate to a location well in excess of the 250 km allowed under the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions as indicated in CANFORGEN 218/08.
The CDS has endorsed the Board's observation to have the CF IRP amended to define “proximity” as meaning within the geographical boundaries of a base with release capability, and referred it to DGCB for its consideration in the next CF IRP version.