# 2015-180 Pay and Benefits, Imposed Restriction (IR), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Separation Expense (SE), Service couples and separation expense benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–10–21

In 2013, the grievor's service spouse was transferred to another place of duty. The grievor, on the other hand, was to be deployed to a mission outside the country and would not be transferred until the next Active Posting Season. In light of the circumstances, the couple decided that the wife would assume responsibility for the children and the family's household goods and effects (HG and E), which were relocated with her. The service couple's career managers informed the couple that the grievor would receive distinct separation expense (SE) benefits. When the grievor returned from the mission, he stayed in a rented apartment in town because, according to a local policy, members receiving SE benefits were not allowed to live in singles' quarters. The grievor was subsequently informed that he did not qualify for SE benefits, as they were only paid to members transferred to another place of duty, which was not the grievor's case. The grievor believed he had been wronged, given that he had been told he would receive SE benefits. Had he known that he did not qualify, he would have found somewhere less expensive to live.

The Initial Authority acknowledged that the grievor was wrongly informed, but noted that the policies are clear regarding eligibility criteria for SE benefits and that the grievor does not meet the criteria. The Initial Authority concluded, therefore, that the grievor had been treated fairly.

The Committee concluded that the misinformation led the grievor to choose an accommodation option that caused him financial harm. The Committee was of the opinion that, had the grievor known that he did not qualify for SE benefits, he would have stayed in the singles' quarters. Furthermore, the Committee concluded that, even if he had decided to stay in the singles' quarters, the grievor's exceptional situation would have justified having the CDS pay the grievor's accommodation expenses, given that the situation was a result of service requirements. In light of the circumstances and given that the situation meets the criteria established by the courts with respect to negligent misrepresentation; the Committee recommended that the case be forwarded to the Director, Claims and Civil Litigation, for consideration regarding financial compensation.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Pending