# 2016-104 - Compassionate Travel Assistance (CTA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–09–06

The Committee had to determine if the grievor was entitled to Compassionate Travel Assistance (CTA) benefits for his travel to see a member of his family that was severely ill.

The Initial Authority (IA) stated that, in accordance with paragraph 209.51(3) of the Compensation and Benefit Instructions, only a Class “B” Reservist who is authorized to move his household goods and effects at public expense for that Class “B” Reserve Service is entitled to CTA. Considering that the grievor was not authorized a move relative to his Class “B” service, the IA found that he was not entitled to reimbursement of his travel expenses.

The Committee found that, in accordance with the policy, the grievor's airfare expenses were not reimbursable. However, the Committee made an observation regarding the fairness of the policy.

The Committee failed to see a significant link between the requirement for a move at Crown expense and financial assistance provided to assist with travel for compassionate reasons.

The Committee argued that, reunification with immediate family members facing death, illness or serious injury should not be contingent upon having been granted a Crown funded relocation. In fact, the Committee indicated that the difference of entitlement sends a message that the importance of family is regarded differently depending on whether you are a Regular Force or Reserve Force member.

The Committee found that the policy is imperfect, segregates on the basis of an unreasonable and unrelated factor; and creates undesirable effects. In its view, if the aim of the policy is to assist with travel for compassionate reasons, the entitlement to CTA should be based on the uniqueness and particularities of full-time, military service. The Committee indicated that the Final Authority may wish to have the CTA dispositions reviewed.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied, but disagreed with its finding that the CTA policy is problematic. The FA stated that while no policy is perfect, that does not mean that CTA is not a valuable benefit, and that the current eligibility criteria are consistent with the intent of the policy.