# 2023-026 Pay and Benefits, Separation Expense

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-10-17

The grievor contested the Separation Expense (SE) policy; specifically, the eligibility criteria at subparagraph 208.997(3)(h) of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) requiring that a dependant must occupy the primary residence on a full-time basis for a CAF member to receive SE. The grievor argued that the SE policy only addresses the financial burden of married CAF members and not those of single parent CAF members who can be separated from their children because of service requirements. The grievor requested that this eligibility criteria be replaced by proof of child support payment and separation agreement or that the CBI adopt the definition of dependant found in Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instructions 01/17 - Imposed Restrictions, which is less restrictive in terms of residency requirements.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), acknowledged that the grievor felt negatively impacted by the SE policy because of his single parent status. The IA noted, however, that the grievor was requesting a policy change, which is beyond their authority to grant through the grievance process, thus denying redress. Nonetheless, the IA stated that the grievor's comments would be considered in the next review of the SE policy.

The Committee found that the purpose of the SE policy is to help defray additional living expenses that CAF members incur due to short-term separation from their dependants and household goods and effects because of their unaccompanied posting to a new place of duty, which was not the grievor's case. When the grievor requested SE benefits, he had been geographically separated from his children for some years, not because of his posting but because his former spouse, also a CAF member who had primary custody of their children, was posted on two occasions to different places of duty. The grievor requested SE to defray accommodation costs at his new place of duty while he maintained his primary residence at his former place of duty when he had no dependant residing in that geographical area, which is not the intent of the policy. The Committee observed that benefits to compensate CAF members for expenses incurred due to military service cannot be limitless or accommodate all personal choices. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.

Nonetheless, the Committee recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces consider reviewing the Leave Travel Allowance Benefit to provide additional support for travel expenses in circumstances where a CAF member is separated from their children due to the posting of their former spouse who is also a CAF member and has primary custody of their dependant children.