# 2012-010 Pay and Benefits, Recruitment Allowance
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012–02–28
The grievor re-enrolled in the Canadian Forces (CF) in his former military occupation (MOC) at which time he was informed that he was entitled to the $20,000 recruitment allowance (RA). A subsequent verification by his unit revealed that the grievor was not entitled to the RA since he had not been out of the CF for the required minimum of 36 months. The grievor was informed accordingly.
In his grievance, the grievor stated he intended to re-enrol and seek a naval MOC and a posting to the west coast; consequently, he was not contemplating an Army occupation since a posting to the west coast would be unlikely in such an occupation. However, he contended he was informed by the Recruiting Centre that he would be entitled to the RA if he re-enrolled in his former MOC which was understrength at the time. As redress, the grievor requested the RA be paid in full as stated in the "contract agreement", namely his enrolment, transfer and posting instruction message.
The Board acknowledged the grievor's MOC was considered an understrength occupation at the time he re-enrolled; the Board also noted that, according to the pertinent regulations, an individual must have been out of the CF for 36 months prior to re-enrolling. Consequently, in absence of any discretion, the Board found the grievor did not qualify to receive the RA.
The Board was also of the view that the CF persuaded the grievor to re-enrol in his former occupation by extending the promise of a substantial cash payment and, after the grievor had enrolled, reneged on that promise. The Board's opinion was that although the grievor' s case could satisfy the first four criteria for negligent misrepresentation, evidence suggested that while the grievor effectively relied on the advice, he suffered no loss as a consequence. Since the RA was never paid to the grievor, recovery and its financial consequences were not present; as well, the grievor intended to re-enrol and he would have done so regardless of whether he were to receive a RA. The Board concluded that the grievor did not meet the fifth criterion of negligent misrepresentation.
Notwithstanding, as a result of the promise of a cash payment, the grievor changed his mind concerning his career of choice and was persuaded to re-enrol in his former MOC; by promising a RA, the CF attracted the grievor in an understrength MOC in order to meet a CF manning shortfall. The grievor held up his side of the deal. The CF did not. It was the Board' s view that the grievor' s agreement to enrol, given due consideration, namely the promise extended to him before his enrolment, concluded an enforceable arrangement of a contractual nature between the grievor (who was a civilian at the time) and the Crown and that such an agreement should survive enrolment in the CF. In the circumstances and in light of its findings in previous similar cases, the Board's opinion was that the CF had a moral obligation to provide some redress to the grievor.
The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that the grievance be partially granted.
The Board recommended that the CDS acknowledge the error that led to a breach of the grievor's offer of enrolment and that he refer the file to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for review as a potential claim of breach of contract.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–01–09
The CDS agreed in part with the Board's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. Since he does not have the authority to accept liability on behalf of the Crown, the CDS stated that he cannot speak to any issues regarding negligent misrepresentation or breach of contract. However, the CDS agreed with the Board's finding that the CF, who made an error by providing the grievor with inaccurate information, had a moral obligation to compensate him. Therefore, based on QR&O 15.01 and 15.33, the CDS approved the grievor's release on request, in recognition of the error made at the time of his enrolment, his recent offer of civilian employment and the understandable frustration as these constitute "good and substantial reasons".