Background
Roxanne Lesage, a former Canadian Armed Forces warrant officer, disputed the relocation benefits arising from her 2018 transfer from Halifax to Bagotville. Her claims concerned home-search and inspection trips, two moving trailers, the sale of her Halifax residence, temporary occupancy of two residences, mortgage-loan insurance, and a mortgage-discharge penalty.
The Military Grievances External Review Committee found that Lesage had been aggrieved on some items and recommended partial relief. On November 9, 2022, the Chief of the Defence Staff, acting as the Final Authority, substantially adopted that analysis. It allowed certain travel, childcare, mileage, trailer, and mortgage-penalty expenses but rejected other claims under the amended Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive. Lesage filed for judicial review on June 18, 2024.
The record showed that, even if Lesage had not received the decision in 2022, she indisputably received the decision, calculations, and grievance-closing letter by January 29, 2024. Her application was therefore filed well beyond the 30-day statutory deadline, and she had not properly sought or justified an extension.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It held that the proceeding was substantially out of time and that Lesage offered no valid explanation for the delay. Although that conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the case, the Court also examined the merits because her submissions raised broader complaints about her treatment by the Armed Forces.
Applying reasonableness review, the Court held that Lesage had not identified any serious flaw in the Final Authority’s reasoning. The amended relocation directive applied because her Halifax home was sold after April 19, 2018. Under that version, a compensable real-estate loss was calculated by comparing the $245,000 sale price with the $190,000 purchase price, without adding the cost of the garage and repairs; the sale therefore produced no compensable loss.
The denial of temporary-dual-residence and mortgage-insurance benefits was also reasonable because Lesage did not submit the required professional appraisal. Her broader allegations about accounting errors, tax treatment, pension deductions, harassment, and unfair transfers either were unsupported or fell outside the grievance decision under review. The Court awarded the Attorney General lump-sum costs of $500, including taxes and disbursements.
Key Takeaways
- A Federal Court judicial-review application generally must be brought within 30 days after the challenged decision is first communicated; a lengthy, unexplained delay can independently defeat the proceeding.
- Judicial review examines the legality and reasonableness of the administrative decision, not every broader complaint arising from the parties’ relationship or a fresh version of the underlying dispute.
- Under the post-April 19, 2018 relocation directive, Lesage’s garage and repair costs could not be added to her home’s purchase price when calculating a compensable real-estate loss.
- Failure to provide a professional appraisal required by the relocation directive reasonably supported denial of the temporary-dual-residence and mortgage-insurance claims.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the strict timing requirements for federal judicial review and the applicant’s burden to identify serious defects in the particular administrative decision being challenged. General allegations of unfairness, accounting problems, or institutional mistreatment do not establish unreasonableness without evidence and a clear connection to the decision under review.
For Canadian Armed Forces members contesting relocation benefits, the case also underscores that eligibility turns on the directive in force at the legally relevant time and on compliance with its documentary conditions, even where an earlier version of the policy might have produced a more favourable result.