# 2024-156 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, House Hunting Trip, Additional Car Rental Costs

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-09

The grievor grieved the denial of full reimbursement of the cost of a rental vehicle while he was on a house hunting trip (HHT) for an outside of Canada posting. Based on the grievor's family size, a “Van (Standard)” was reserved; however, it turned out to be a vehicle with five standard seats and two pop up seats in the rear, which left little space for luggage. The grievor claimed that the rental company refused to rent the vehicle to him for safety reasons and required him to rent a more expensive nine passenger vehicle.  As redress, he sought full reimbursement of the larger van from the Core account.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration, acknowledged that the grievor was entitled to a “minivan” in accordance with the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD) and, although the CAFRD did not define “minivan”, the IA found that the originally reserved van was suitable. The IA granted reimbursement of the prorated base cost of the original van from the Core account for the standard HHT and from the Custom account for the extended HHT portion, in accordance with articles 4.2.01 and 4.3.03 of the CAFRD. However, the IA denied reimbursement of the upgrade cost of the larger van, finding that there were no safety reasons for it and paragraph 3.3.02 of the CAFRD did not provide a category under which reimbursing the grievor for reasons of party size and amount of luggage could be justified.

The Committee noted that the CAFRD did not define minivan but concluded that the original rental vehicle was not a minivan by North American standards and was, therefore, unsuitable for the grievor's family size. 

The Committee also found ample evidence that the rental company refused to rent the original vehicle due to safety reasons. As such, the Committee found that the larger vehicle was not an upgrade but a requirement for safety reasons. The Committee determined that the grievor's situation met the definition of exceptional circumstances in accordance with articles 1.3.02 and 1.4 of the CAFRD. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority direct full reimbursement of the rental vehicle, including the upgrade fee, from the Core account.