# 2014-023 - Compassionate Travel Assistance (CTA)

Compassionate Travel Assistance (CTA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–05–23

The grievor component transferred to the Reserve Force (Res F), and immediately began a Class “B” period of service. Shortly thereafter, he was authorized a period of compassionate leave and he travelled to be with a family member who became critically ill. As a result, he submitted a claim for compassionate travel assistance (CTA) but was refused payment due to a change in policy.

Under a Director Compensation Benefits Administration (DCBA) Domestic Benefits Aide Memoire, the grievor would have been entitled to reimbursement of CTA. However, Canadian Forces general message (CANFORGEN) 032/11 was released clarifying certain compensation and benefit entitlements, including CTA. The CANFORGEN stated that CTA only applied to Reg F members and Res F members who had been authorized to move their dependents, household goods and effects ((D)HG&E) with respect to their current period of service. The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance stating that despite the grievor being eligible for reimbursement under the Aide Memoire, it deviated from the Treasury Board-approved benefits framework. As a result, it would be unlawful to reimburse the grievor's CTA claim since he was not authorized to move his (D)HG&E for his Res F service, but rather under his Regular Force (Reg F) service.

The Committee examined the relevant policy, that being the Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 209.51, and found that the grievor had been authorized to move his (D)HG&E to his current location at public expense when he was a member of the Reg F and not with respect to his Res F Class “B” period of service. The Committee therefore found that he was not entitled to reimbursement of his CTA claim. The Committee also found that the grievor was not discriminated against, given that he was treated as per the conditions established for any other Res F member on Class “B” service, for which the move of (D)HG&E was not authorized at public expense.

The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–10–20

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.

Page details

Date modified: