# 2021-264 Pay and Benefits, Exceptional Hazard Allowance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-03-30

In early 2020, Operation (Op) LASER commenced as the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the grievor, a Medical Officer, was deployed to a COVID-19 clinic. The grievor contended that her tasking to the COVID-19 clinic should be included as part of Op LASER, and that she should therefore be eligible for Exceptional Hazard Allowance (EHA). As redress, she requested confirmation that the clinic fell under the umbrella of Op LASER, and that she be provided with EHA.

The Initial Authority (IA) stated that the grievor's tasking to the COVID-19 clinic was not a deployment as part of Op LASER, but an internal unit tasking. The IA noted there were no new expenses related to the grievor's tasking given that she remained in the same geographical area and lived in her normal place of residence. The IA indicated that Compensation and Benefit Instructions (CBI) 205.38, EHA, provided that the only service on Op LASER which qualified for EHA is that of members who were exposed to COVID-19 while deployed to a long-term care facility (LTCF). He concluded that the grievor's tasking was not part of Op LASER, nor was she entitled to EHA.

The Committee found that the grievor did not deploy to the COVID-19 clinic under Op LASER, nor was there justification to include the clinic under the Op LASER Force Employment construct. The Committee noted that the Government of Canada did call upon the CAF to assist provincial authorities to deal with the crisis in LTCF. Those members tasked for this purpose were granted EHA by the Treasury Board for their service in a high-risk of exposure environment. However, this did not include the grievor's tasks at the COVID-19 clinic. The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to EHA pursuant to CBI 205.38.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff, acting as the FA, acknowledged the professionalism and dedication displayed by the grievor at the COVID-19 Clinic. However, he concurred with the Committee's findings and recommendation, and denied redress.