# 2022-018 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-05-22

Following his release from the Canadian Armed Forces on medical grounds, the grievor filed a grievance challenging the refusal to reimburse him for a Home Equity Assistance (HEA) related claim on the ground that he had relocated less than 40 km away from his original residence, contrary to the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive. The grievor stated that he had been given poor advice by Brookfield Global Relocation Services (BGRS) on more than one occasion and that he would have made a different choice had he been given the right information.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor was not entitled to the sought-after HEA reimbursement because he had relocated less than 40 km away from his original residence. The IA recognized that BGRS had made mistakes, but held that it did not have the authority to waive the criteria of the CFIRP Directive.

The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to HEA under the CFIRP Directive. It also found that as a service provider, BGRS had a duty of care towards the grievor, who had fulfilled his responsibilities by making inquiries about HEA on more than one occasion. Since BGRS had told the grievor that he was eligible for HEA, even if relocated less than 40 km away from his original residence, the Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved by the instructions of BGRS, which had failed in its duties as a service provider. The Committee was therefore of the opinion that the grievor's case met the five requirements established by the Supreme Court in Cognos for compensation when a person has relied on negligent misrepresentation to their detriment.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority refer the grievor's case to the Director, Claims and Civil Litigation, with its support, for a review of the possibility of compensating the grievor.