# 2023-028 Pay and Benefits, Compensation for Disability - Reserve Force

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-02-06

The grievor, a Reserve Force member, challenged the denial of Reserve Force Compensation (RFC) for the full period of recovery from an injury he sustained while on duty. The RFC was only granted for a portion of the period because the grievor had been paid for casual days of Class “A” Reserve Service during his recovery as part of an informal Return to Duty (RTD) plan supported by his Commanding Officer. The injury resulted in medical employment limitations that prevented the grievor from resuming either Class “B” Reserve Service or the civilian occupation he held at the time he proceeded on training on Class “B” Reserve Service during which he was injured; he therefore had no other source of income during his recovery.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance indicating that the grievor was only eligible for RFC up until he served casually on Class “A” Reserve Service with his unit. The IA deemed the grievor's casual service to be a resumption of active participation in the Reserve Force as defined in article 210.72 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) for the Canadian Forces, as it was not part of a documented formal RTD plan.

The Committee found that the CBI does not preclude the payment of RFC and the earning of Reserve Force pay while undergoing medical treatment, even if that service is not sanctioned through a formal RTD plan. The Committee disagreed that the CBI required a formal RTD plan be approved per Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5018-4, Return to Duty Program for Canadian Armed Forces Members. The Committee found that denying compensation in the grievor's circumstances violates the spirit of the RFC as recognized by the Chief of the Defence Staff in a previous grievance. The grievor served sporadically in a very limited capacity that was not the usual duties he would have performed – which is not the Committee's interpretation of the CBI's definition of active participation. His service-related injury also prevented resumption of his civilian employment until sufficiently healed. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority grant the grievor RFC for the entire period until his medical employment limitations were lifted.

The Committee further observed that, over the years, it dealt with other RFC-related grievances where the Director Casualty Support Management's (DCSM) application of the policy differed from the unit's understanding, inadvertently leading to misinformation and maladministration. Given that Reserve Force units are at the front lines of the issue, the Committee opined that it would be advisable for the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure that Reserve units identify potential RFC cases early and have ready access to advice from DCSM to properly inform and support their ill or injured members.