# 2020-187 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-07-21

The grievor proceeded to a new place of duty, unaccompanied by his Household Goods and Effects (HG&E), and secured accommodations at his destination. His HG&E remained in his residence at origin, which was for sale but not sold. The grievor applied for Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA) benefits under Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive Article 8.2.07. Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) denied the claim because the grievor's residence had not remained “vacant.” The grievor contended that the CFIRP Directive is deficient, as it does not define the word “vacant.” The grievor further contended that he received mediocre service and advice from BGRS. As redress, the grievor requested the reimbursement of TDRA benefits, revision to the CFIRP Directive and additional training for BGRS consultants.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined, based on one dictionary definition, that the grievor's residence had not remained “vacant” considering it still  contained the grievor’s HG&E. Further, the IA noted that they do not have the authority to effect changes to the provisions of the CFIRP Directive or to the training practices of a contracted civilian company. The IA denied redress, finding that the grievor was not entitled to TDRA benefits and had been treated fairly in accordance with the applicable policy.

The Committee found that “empty of HG&E” was a reasonable interpretation of the word “vacant” in the context of the CFIRP Directive, based on several dictionary definitions and on the principles of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to TDRA benefits. 

The Committee also noted that BGRS service delivery improvements were implemented for Active Posting Season 2019 and that the CFIRP Directive had been replaced by the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive as of 1 April 2021. The Committee found that these measures adequately addressed the grievor's request for improved guidance and clarity in this matter.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford redress.

FA Decision Summary  

The FA agreed with the Committee's interpretation of the word “vacant” in this context, with its finding that the grievor had not been aggrieved, and with its recommendation that the grievor not be afforded redress.  

The FA agreed that the grievor had not left his house vacant, but also noted that, under the circumstances, the grievor was required to occupy single quarters at his new place of duty until his house sold. The FA concluded that the grievor was not entitled to TDRA because his house was not vacant and he did not reside in single quarters.