# 2015-203 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–30

The grievor claimed he was unjustly denied reimbursement by the Canadian Armed Forces for the cost of renting a second vehicle used in the course of his relocation to a new posting. Due to a booking error by the relocation consultant, the grievor argued that he had little choice but to rent a second car because no oversized vehicles were available, and the full-size car that was reserved could not accommodate his dependants, pets and luggage.

The initial authority (IA) found that in accordance with article 9.3.03 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Plan (CF IRP), the grievor was entitled to reimbursement as a core benefit for one rental vehicle. The IA noted that according to the policy, when an upgrade was required to facilitate the transportation of pets, the upgrade would be reimbursed from personalized funds. The IA found that a second vehicle was not considered an upgrade that could be reimbursed from personalized funding. The IA concluded that the grievor's file was administered properly and denied the grievance.

Noting that there was no contest that the additional expenses incurred by the grievor were due to the relocation consultant's error, the Committee found that the grievor's decision in the circumstances was sound and fiscally responsible. As such, the grievor could not reasonably be held responsible for the additional expenses he incurred. Upon further research, the Committee determined that the cost of the upgrade to an oversized vehicle, as originally requested by the grievor, would have been greater than the cost he incurred due to the booking error.

Thus, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff use the ministerial authority found in article 2.1.01 of the CF IRP to direct the reimbursement from the grievors' personalized funds.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–05–26

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation except that he found that the grievor was entitled to two days of car rental instead of only one as recommended by the Committee. The FA received the information from the car rental enterprise that when a car is rented the day before a holiday and the agency is closed on that holiday, the contract is automatically written for two days and the individual is charged those two days, even when the vehicle is dropped off and the key is placed in the drop box on.