# 2015-051 - Administration of Operational Allowances, Temporary Duty Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–06–29

The grievor challenged the rejection of his request to be refunded for expenses associated with vehicle storage, home maintenance and caretaking, and grass mowing while he was serving in Romania. No decision was made by the initial authority.

Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) provided documents concerning Op REASSURANCE confirming that there were two parts to the deployment: a part in Romania and a part in Lithuania. Each CAF component had a different allowance depending on the location and length of its deployment.

The Committee noted that, in a letter from the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), and in a briefing note addressed to him, it was indicated that Op REASSURANCE was considered to be an exercise in Romania. In addition, CJOC had informed the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) in April 2014 that its members were to be sent on temporary duty (TD). Following that notification, it seems that a decision was made that CAF members would be sent on TD. The Committee therefore found that the grievor was on TD in Romania.

The Committee noted that, in accordance with paragraph 10.2.05(4) of the MFSI, soldiers on TD are only entitled to the risk allowance set out in MFSI 10.3.07 and that the other allowances and benefits to which they may be entitled were set out in the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instruction (CFTDTI).

However, as the mission of Op REASSURANCE was to conduct military training and exercises with the Romanian Air Force, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to a risk allowance because he was not on operation. Instead, he was entitled to an incidental expense allowance, which did not cover vehicle storage fees. The Committee also noted that there was no provision in the CFTDTI that specifically covered those costs, and that it did not consider this to be a situation that warranted using the special powers outlined in CFTDTI 4.01.

However, the Committee noted that, starting on 1 September 2014, Op REASSURANCE in Lithuania became an operation and that certain members were assigned to it on attached posting. According to the definition set out in Chapter 10 of the MFSI, an attached posting means a temporary posting or deployment for a period of 14 days or longer (but less than 60 days) to fill a position or support an operation in a place other than the one where the member is ordinarily employed and where he/she continues to fill a position. The Committee found that the grievor met the conditions to be considered on attached posting while serving in Lithuania.

The Committee therefore found that the grievor was entitled to the foreign service premium and the post living allowance, which he had already received. In addition, he was entitled to the Level 1 hardship and risk allowance, as confirmed by the Director of Coordination of Support to Operations/Strategic Joint Staff to the Department of National Defence.

The Committee found that, in accordance with MFSI 10.28.01, the grievor was entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred for maintaining his uninhabited residence, maintaining his grass and storing his vehicle during the time that he was serving in Lithuania.

The Committee therefore recommended that the grievor's file be reviewed in order for his incidentals to be adjusted to reflect only his TD period in Romania.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS partially agreed with the Committee's recommendation. The CDS agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor was aggrieved and ordered that he be reimbursed for the expenses identified by the Committee, except regarding the storage of his vehicle. The CDS concluded that the invoice submitted by the grievor did not correspond to the storage of his vehicle.