# 2018-053 Pay and Benefits, Education allowance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-04-05

The grievor was denied reimbursement for the cost of the Calculus and Vectors tutoring fees he disbursed for his dependant son while posted overseas. He noted that the objective of the Foreign Service Directive (FSD) 34 is to ensure that students have the necessary prerequisites to pursue the university education of their choosing. He argued that his child's school overseas could not be considered a secondary education facility compatible to schools in Ontario. He further explained that the switch to the United States based curriculum had obliged his child to take two math courses concurrently when one should have been taken following completion of the first. Both courses were required so that the child qualified for enrolment in his chosen Canadian university. The grievor concluded that this situation would not have occurred in the Ontario school system, and, as a result, the cost of the needed tutoring should be reimbursed.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance finding that the child was provided with an education approximating Canadian standards, that he had all the credits deemed necessary to earn an Ontario secondary school diploma, and that the tutoring costs did not meet the criteria for an admissible education expense.

The Committee found that the intent of FSD 34 is to allow students to pursue their education in a manner similar to that available to students in Ontario, and that the grievor's actions were reasonable and consistent with the intent of FSD 34. The Committee found that the policy aspires to a higher standard than merely achieving a secondary school diploma, noting that the intent of FSD 34 is to offer students choices, allowing them to pursue their education from junior kindergarten to completion of secondary schooling in a manner similar to that available to students in Ontario. Since high school students in Ontario have a choice between pursuing differing educational paths or streams on the way to completing their secondary school diploma, the Committee found that FSD 34 is meant to offer that same choice to students outside of Canada.

The Committee concluded that the move between the Canadian and United States (US) education systems had left the child with key gaps in math and the grievor, with the assistance of Guidance Counsellors in Canada and the US, took the steps necessary to address the deficiencies that had occurred. Through his actions in that regard, the Committee found that the grievor was seeking a “compatible education” for his son in accordance with FSD 34.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority engage the appropriate Federal Government advisory authority [Working Group B] in order to obtain their endorsement/approval for the Canadian Armed Forces to reimburse the tutoring expenses claimed by the grievor.

FA decision summary

The Final Authority (FA), the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with the Committee's recommendation that Working Group B be re-engaged to seek a positive recommendation that the grievor be reimbursed for his dependant's tutoring fees. However, the FA directed that this occur after his decision rather than before, as was recommended by the Committee. The FA agreed with the findings that the tutoring fees were an admissible education expense as the Foreign Service Directives allow the pursuit of differing educational streams, the gap in the dependant's ability was attributable to the different curriculum available outside Canada, and the tutor was recommended by competent educational authorities.