# 2016-192 - Allowances and Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–03–24

The grievor, a Reservist who was injured on Class A service, requested to be reimbursed for expenses incurred when he hired a replacement to finish the construction contracts that he was not able to complete following his injury.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, found that the grievor was treated fairly and in accordance with the regulations and policies in effect at the time of his injury. The IA therefore found that it could not grant the grievor's redress-of-grievance request. The IA explained that Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 210.72 – Reserve Force – Compensation During a Period of Injury, Disease or Illness, made provisions for compensation equivalent to the rate of pay that the grievor was receiving at the time of his injury, covering the period of incapacity. The IA therefore found that the grievor was eligible for it until he returned to his civilian duties.

The Committee had to determine whether or not the grievor was entitled to receive additional financial compensation for the costs incurred following his injury.

The Committee first specified that the Chief of the Defence Staff does not have the authority to award damages as part of the grievance process. Although he has the authority to award an ex-gratia payment under Order in Council 2012–0861, the Committee is of the opinion that he cannot authorize that in this case, as it would involve compensating the grievor in order to fill a gap or circumvent the regulation, i.e. CBI 210.72, so as to expand the application of the provisions of this compensation.

The Committee therefore recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Committee noticed certain anomalies in the file and finds that the CAF did not handle the grievor's case in accordance with the CBI. Firstly, the Committee noted that, following the grievor's injury, his Reserve unit employed him while he was unable to fulfill the duties associated with his occupation and he had not yet seen a medical doctor who could have issued medical employment limitations and determined whether a period of treatment and a return to work program were required. Secondly, the Committee noted that the Director Casualty Support Management (DCSM) seems to have determined after the fact that the grievor did not return to active duty when he returned to Class A service. It found, rather, that his service was now part of a period of treatment and a return-to-work program, thus his entitlement to the compensation. The Committee is of the opinion that it is not up to the DCSM to determine that a member has not returned to active service or deem that he has participated in a return-to-work program without being advised of that by a doctor or his unit.

Despite those anomalies, the Committee found that the claimant should not be penalized because the CAF did not handle his case in accordance with the CBI and recommends that he be able to keep his compensation.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agrees in part with the findings and recommendations of the Committee. The FA was satisfied with the DCSM's interpretation of CBI 210.72. However, the FA determined that the pay granted for the half days of class A service should have been for a full day. Therefore, the FA granted three additional half days to the grievor.