# 2022-057 Pay and Benefits, Removal of DCBA Clarification Bulletin #4 - Definition of actively marketed home, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-06-15

The grievor disputed the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) decision that denied them entitlement to Temporary Dual Residence Assistance (TDRA) based on Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive 2009 and, more precisely, based on CFIRP 2010- Clarification Bulletin 4 (Clarification of Principal Residence Actively Marketed) (“Bulletin 2010-4”). The grievor argued that the Bulletin should not take precedence over the CFIRP Directive and that the variation between his list price and the appraised value of his residence was reasonable and consistent with the appraisal price and the conditions of the market.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance, finding that article 8.2.07 of the CFIRP Directive provided benefits associated with the expenses of maintaining two residences if the member's former residence remained “unsold, vacant, and actively marketed”. The IA determined that “actively marketed” was defined in Section 1 of the CFIRP and expanded upon in Bulletin 2010-4. The IA stated that the Bulletin was Treasury Board (TB) approved and that TB had determined that for a residence to be considered “actively marketed”, the listing price could not be greater than the appraised value. Since the grievor's residence list price was above the appraised value, the IA found that they were not eligible for the requested TDRA benefits. 

The Committee observed that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had previously agreed with the Committee that there was no evidence that Clarification Bulletin 2010-4 was ever approved by TB or that it properly reflected TB's intent. The Committee noted that the CDS had directed DGCB and the DCBA to remove Bulletin 2010-4 from circulation and observed that if TB had intended to limit TDRA benefits to only those Canadian Armed Forces members who listed their residence at, or below, the appraised value, it would have amended the language in the CFIRP Directive long ago. The Committee concluded that the Bulletin 2010-4 had no standing and that it could not be used to establish TDRA benefits.

The Committee found that article 8.2.07 of the CFIRP Directive requires that in order to be actively marketed, the listing price could not diverge in any significant manner from the appraisal price, but it did not need to be the same or even less - only similar. Finally, the Committee found that there was a discretion built into the policy and that it should be exercised to accept the grievor's listing price.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by directing that the grievor be reimbursed the actual and reasonable expenses that they incurred, associated with maintaining two residences.