# 2015-215 - Temporary Duty Benefits, Travel Expenses

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–08–24

Over a seven-year period (1997 to 2003), the grievor was placed on several periods of Temporary Duty (TD) for a variety of reasons. During this time, he incurred legitimate expenses but failed to submit claims for reimbursement. In 2011, the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration advised him that his late claims would not be approved because they had not been submitted within the one year allowed by the policy. The grievor explained that he had not submitted his claims at the time of the TD because the supporting documentation had been misplaced amongst seldom used military kit. He argued that a pay overpayment had been recovered from him after nine years and considered it to be unfair that his claim could not be settled in the same arrears period.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance on the basis that, in accordance with Treasury Board approved prescriptions on payment of claims over one year old, he could not grant the redress sought. The IA agreed that claims could be approved after one year but did not consider the misplacing of the documentation to be “sufficient reason” as required by Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) 203.05 – Delay in Submission of Claims. The IA also stated that claims and pay could not be compared because claims were reimbursable under the Financial Administration Manual and pay was not.

Noting that delayed claims could be reimbursed under QR&O 203.05 if there was “sufficient reason,” the Committee reviewed jurisprudence and the dictionary definition of sufficient, finding that the misplacing of documentation was not sufficient reason for the CDS to use his discretion.

With regard to the delayed recovery of the grievor's pay, to which he acknowledges he was not entitled and did not grieve, the Committee determined that, in accordance with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the CAF was statute barred from collecting any overpayment, whether the grievor was entitled to the money or not, due to a six-year prescription. The Committee found that the recovered pay must be returned to the grievor.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied. Notwithstanding the denial, the Committee recommended that the CDS use his discretion under subsection 29(5) – Correction of Error, of the National Defence Act to correct an error and direct that the grievor be reimbursed the amount recovered from his pay that was outside the statutory six-year time limit.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS found that the grievor had no right to grieve since he was released when submitted his grievance. However, the CDS agreed with the Committee's finding that the CAF was statute-barred from collecting any overpayment discovered well past the authorized six-year period, and its recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed the amount recovered. The CDS directed, not as the FA but as the officer entrusted with the control and administration of the CAF, that the Chief of Military Personnel refund to the grievor any overpayment that was made beyond the six-year limitation that was recovered and to process the appropriate write-off authority from the designated official to lawfully account for the extinguished debt.