# 2013-113 - Accuracy of the information provided by the Base Release Section on the requirements governing pension...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–04–24

The grievor contested the decision of the Director Canadian Forces Pension Services (DCFPS) to deny him the “transfer value” pension benefit at the time of his transfer to the Reserve Force.

The grievor explained that the Base Release Clerk had misled him by telling him that he had to wait a single day in order to benefit from the “transfer value”.

The Initial Authority (IA) confirmed that the Base Release Clerk had misled the grievor and that the Clerk bore responsibility for providing the grievor with all the information he needed to make an informed decision regarding his choice of pension benefit. The IA denied the grievance, however, explaining that the grievor also had a responsibility to request the reference documents cited in the “Release Digest” and to take note of them before signing the document.

The Committee concluded that the grievor had not been treated appropriately because he had been misled by the Base Release Section, who had given him an incomplete and deficient Release Digest which did not provide the information he needed in order to to understand the requirements governing his eligibility for the “transfer value”.

The Committee was of the opinion that the Minister of National Defence should exercise the authority conferred on him by Section 92 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that the grievor could be paid his “transfer value” as a pension benefit. It therefore recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance and ask the Minister to use his discretion to permit the grievor to obtain the “transfer value”, as a pension benefit, with the necessary adjustments.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–12–12

Following the Committee's intercession with the Director Canadian Forces Pension Services, a request to accord the grievor the “transfer value” was submitted to the Minister of National Defence, who approved it. The CDS concluded that the remaining issue, the request for compensation for all the inconvenience, could not be granted.