# 2019-223 Careers, Entitlement to immediate annuity on completion of a long term period of service, Terms of service

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-09-04

After submitting a request for voluntary release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in 2018, the grievor submitted a query to obtain information concerning his pension entitlements. He was surprised to learn that he was not entitled to an immediate annuity because he was serving on an Indefinite Period of Service (IPS), which he had accepted in 2014. He argued that he was not properly informed of the pension modernization changes that had occurred in 2007, nor of the implications of selecting an IPS instead of a Continuing Engagement when offered the choice in 2014. He contended that his original twenty year Intermediate Engagement (IE20) was a strong and binding agreement between him and the CAF and requested that arrangements be made for him to receive an Immediate Annuity based on him having completed his IE20.

The Initial Authority found that once the grievor commenced serving on an IPS, he was no longer entitled to an Immediate Annuity based on an IE20; and, that the CAF has no authority to grant the grievor an Immediate Annuity in accordance with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations (CFSR).

The Committee determined that the changes to the CAF pension were widely announced in 2007 through multiple publications, presentations and briefings across the CAF. There was no excuse for the grievor to be unaware of the changes seven years later, when offered new terms of service. The Committee also noted that even after electing the IPS in 2014, the grievor had an additional three and a half years to request a change before the IPS came into effect in 2017 but did not elect to do so. The Committee found that upon taking his release, while serving on an IPS, the grievor was not entitled to an Immediate Annuity in accordance with the CFSR. Consequently, the Committee recommended the grievance be denied.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and with its recommendation not to grant the redress sought. The CDS found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and policies.