# 2015-194 - Class C Reserve Service, Compensation for Disability - Reserve Force, Extension of Class “C” Service beyond 24 Months, Maternity and Parental Allowance (MATA-PATA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–04–21

The grievor was injured while undergoing pre-deployment training as a Class C Reservist. As she was unable to return to duty, her Class C service was continuously extended for a period of 33 months, at which point she went on parental leave. Upon return from parental leave, the grievor returned to Class A service, but was ultimately medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The grievor argued that she should have been returned to Class C service upon return from parental leave. She also alleged not receiving the full parental allowance (PATA) she believed she was entitled to.

The initial authority (IA) found that the grievor had received the PATA she was entitled to as entitlement to PATA ends 364 days after the birth of a child in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 205.461. The IA also found that the grievor was not returned to Class C service upon completion of her parental leave as she had been deemed fit to seek civilian employment by the medical authorities; and, she had not applied for a further extension of Class C service.

On the issue of PATA, the Committee found that the grievor was only entitled to parental leave - PATA - up to 364 days after the birth of her child. The fact that the Province had approved extended maternity benefits beyond that date did not change or affect the CBI entitlement.

On the issue of further Class C service extensions when the grievor returned from parental leave, the Committee found that CBI 210.72 limits extensions of Class C service to a maximum of 24 months in the case of injured reservists. As the grievor had already been granted extensions for a period of 33 months, the Committee concluded that corrective action was necessary. The Committee also found that the grievor could be granted Reserve Force Compensation (RFC) for the period after the 24 months of Class C service was exhausted. However, as the grievor was able to return to regular Class A service duty upon return from parental leave, the Committee found that she was no longer entitled to an extension of Class C service or RFC at that point.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. The Committee also made a systemic recommendation concerning the errors the CAF had made in approving Class C service extensions for longer than 24 months, contrary to CBI 210.72.

FA Decision Summary

The FA, the Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The FA found that the end date of the grievor's parental leave could not be extended beyond the 52 weeks following the birth of the child, as per QR&O 16.27, in the absence of an “imperative military requirement”. The FA also noted, like the Committee, that the policy limits the extension of Class "C" Reserve Service to a “maximum of twenty-four months” (CBI 210.72) and found that he could therefore not extend her period of Class "C" Reserve Service. The FA noted that “There appears to be some confusion on the part of the various stakeholders, including the Assistant CMP, the CO JPSU, and the Reserve Force Compensation Adjudicator, as to whether such extensions are permitted under the current policies and regulations”. The FA stated that “CI "C" Svc and RFC are distinctly different from one another. Being on CI "C”, or even CI “A" or CI “B", implies that service has been rendered, while RFC allows for the continuation of a benefit in line with the salary you would have been receiving at the time you sustained your service-related injury”. As recommended by the Committee, he directed that the grievor's periods of Class "C" Reserve Service be reviewed and amended to RFC where applicable.