# 2018-149 Pay and Benefits, Compassionate Travel Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-09-23

The grievor argued that while on a one-year prohibited posting outside of Canada, she had to travel back home to attend to her daughter after her father (the grievor's ex-husband) unexpectedly died. The grievor explained that prior to her posting she had to relocate her daughter with her father and when he died, she needed to come home to attend to her daughter's well-being as well as to arrange for her care while the grievor completed her service overseas. As redress, the grievor requested reimbursement of her travel expenses to Canada under the Compassionate Travel Allowance (CTA) benefit.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor's request indicating that the grievor's ex-husband was not included in the definition of “family member” for the purpose of reimbursement of this benefit. The IA suggested that the grievor could use the Post Specific Allowance or her Home Leave Travel Assistance benefit to cover the travel expenses she incurred while on compassionate leave.

The Committee determined that the definition of “family unit” did not include the grievor's ex-husband for the purpose of the CTA. As such, the Committee found that the grievor was not eligible for the reimbursement of her travel expenses under the CTA benefit as her circumstances did not meet the requirements of the policy.

However, given the unique circumstances of the grievor's case, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) grant the grievor an ex gratia payment to assist with her travel costs.

FA decision summary

The FA, the Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, found that the grievance was moot since the grievor had been reimbursed for the flights at issue through the Family Reunion Travel Allowance. The FA noted that the grievor provided this information after the Committee issued its findings and recommendations.

The FA found that the grievor had not met the criteria to be granted the Compassionate Travel Assistance benefit under section 23 of the Military Foreign Service Instructions and section 54.4 of the Foreign Service Directives. The FA indicated that although the grievor's dependant had experienced a life changing event, there was no evidence the dependant had a serious illness as required by the policy.

The FA indicated that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) could not have granted an ex gratia payment in the grievor's case because of the Treasury Board condition that the CDS' ex gratia power not be used to compensate for gaps in policy.