# 2020-137 Pay and Benefits, Education allowance, Foreign Service Directives

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-11-15

The grievor disagreed with the denial of an education allowance (EA) for his two children while serving outside Canada (OUTCAN). He contended that he was unable to enrol his children in a compatible, free school because there was no space available.  As there were also no approved compatible fee-paying schools at his post, he requested that Working Group (WG) B authorize his children to attend a proposed compatible, fee-paying school. As redress, the grievor sought reimbursement of the tuition fees he paid for his children to attend the proposed school during the  first year at his post and reimbursement for the cost of a psychoeducational assessment for his eldest child, conducted  during the OUTCAN screening process.

The Initial Authority did not render a decision within the prescribed timelines. 

The Committee found the grievor sufficiently demonstrated that he was not able to secure  placement at a suitable free  school and that the children's enrolment at the proposed fee-paying school in the first year at his post was reasonable and consistent with the intent of the Foreign Service Directive (FSD) 34. The Committee further found that WG B had failed to properly consider the grievor's case, as required under FSD 34. Consequently, the Committee concluded that WG B’s denial of the grievor's request was neither justified nor inaccordance with the applicable policy. Having determined that another body called WG A is the appropriate committee designated to make final recommendations to the deputy head in regards to EA, the Committee further concluded that the grievor's case should be presented to WG A with a view of obtaining a recommendation that EA be authorized. 

As for the psychoeducational assessment, the Committee found that there is no policy provision under FSD 34 for reimbursement of such costs and, as such, the grievor is not eligible for reimbursement. 

Finally, the Committee observed that given the Final Authority (FA) lacks the authority to grant redress in FSD 34 related matters, it would be beneficial for Canadian Armed Forces members to have a more effective and direct avenue for redress. In the meantime, however, the Committee suggested that the FA consider examining the role of the Children's Education Management (CEM) section in view of ensuring a full and diligent support of members being posted OUTCAN. 

The Committee recommended that the FA request that the Director of CEM engage WG A to seek their recommendation for reimbursement of the eligible school fees incurred by the grievor to send his children to the proposed fee-paying school in the first year at his post.