# 2019-213 Pay and Benefits, Family Care Assistance

Family Care Assistance (FCA)  

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2021–01–13

The grievor, a single mother, claimed that the Canadian Forces Recruiting Center (CFRC) had provided reassurances that she would be entitled to the $75 daily maximum amount of Family Care Assistance (FCA) while attending basic training. She arranged for her dependant child to be taken care by a friend for the duration of her basic training and stored her household goods and effects (HG&E) at public expense.  The grievor was later told by the training facility's Base Orderly Room that she did not qualify for FCA. As redress, she sought FCA in the amount of $11,475.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied redress. The IA determined that the grievor was not absent from her place of duty, and as her move of HG & E was prohibited, her family home was not located at her place of duty.  As such, the IA found that the grievor did not meet the conditions for FCA set out at Article 209.335 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI).

The Committee found that the grievor's circumstances did not meet the conditions for FCA set out in CBI 209.335. After considering the facts of the case, the Committee reviewed the assurances provided by the CFRC against the test for detrimental reliance set out by the Supreme Court of Canada In Queen v Cognos Inc ([1993] 1 SCR 87) and found that not all conditions were met. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.  


Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: