# 2015-251 - Accommodation, Family Care Assistance (FCA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–10–21

The grievor, who had sole custody of his child, rented a residence off base from him and his child and paid childcare fees for the duration of his training. Upon returning to the unit, the grievor requested to be reimbursed for the accommodation and childcare fees incurred during his professional training. He claimed that since his child had been required to stay with him during his training by court order, that he had no spouse to care for him and that he had been authorized to live off base, he should be reimbursed for the expenses incurred.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor's request, stating that although he received permission to live off base, the situation involving the fact that his child was required to stay with him during his training had been created by a personal situation and decision. The grievor was ineligible to be reimbursed for accommodation fees given that housing was available for the grievor on base. With respect to the childcare expenses, the IA found that no policy supports that the grievor should be reimbursed for these expenses.

The Committee found that the grievor should have established a Family Care Plan (FCP) tailored to his family situation, which would have allowed him to take professional training while ensuring the care of his child at home. Consequently, the grievor would have been housed at the Crown's expense during his training and could have benefitted from Family Care Assistance. The CAF are not responsible for reimbursing or required to reimburse the grievor for expenses incurred during his training.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–03–30

The FA supported the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance although she did endorse all the Committee's conclusions. Contrary to the Committee, the FA was of the opinion that the grievor's family care plan was reasonable and feasible at the time of drafting. At the time it was applied, events required that the plan be modified; the FA was of the opinion, however, that there was nothing on file to indicate that other options had been envisaged, other than a court order allowing the grievor to bring the child with her. This court order could not be invoked, however, to justify the payment of compensation by the CAF. The FA agreed with the Committee's conclusion that the grievor did not satisfy the conditions to benefit from Family Care Assistance.