# 2023-113 Careers, Annual Leave, COVID-19, Entitlement to Annual Leave

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-01-21

The grievor contested his Commanding Officer's (CO) decision to deny a request for five days of annual leave to travel to Alberta to retrieve a vehicle he had previously purchased but had been unable to pick up earlier due to health restrictions in effect in British Columbia (B.C.) during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also noted that he intended to use the trip to collect heirlooms stored at his mother's home in B.C. on his return journey. The CO denied the grievor's request, stating that the purpose of the trip did not meet the criteria for essential travel. The CO further explained that other options were available to retrieve the vehicle and the heirlooms, such as shipping the vehicle or arranging for Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) staff in the interior health region to collect the heirlooms from the grievor's mother's home and store them until health restrictions were lifted. As redress, the grievor requested both an official apology from his former CO and reimbursement of the shipping costs incurred to repatriate his vehicle from Alberta to B.C.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor had been treated fairly in accordance with applicable regulations and denied his request for redress. The IA concluded that the CO's decision to deny the request was reasonable, given that B.C.'s public health orders required avoiding non-essential travel and that alternative means, such as shipping the vehicle, were available. The IA specified that a request limited to travelling to the grievor's mother's home would likely have been supported, as it involved local travel with minimal risk.

In response to the IA's decision, the grievor argued that leave and domestic travel within Canada were still authorized for all CAF members under CANFORGEN 102/20 through normal procedures. He emphasized that there were no self-isolation requirements for domestic travel in B.C. and that his unit would be obligated to accommodate telework upon his return, thereby negating the need to use additional annual leave. Finally, he asserted that the CAF had no authority to dictate how he should spend his money, particularly when a cost-effective option, such as personally retrieving the vehicle, was available. He requested that his grievance be forwarded to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that, as per CANFORGEN 102/20, annual leave within Canada was authorized for all CAF members through normal channels while respecting location-based restrictions. However, the B.C. government was actively encouraging residents to avoid non-essential travel, advising that travel should be limited to work-related or medical purposes. After reviewing the grievor's request to travel for personal reasons, the Committee determined that the proposed travel did not fall within the essential categories of work-related duties or medical care. Additionally, the Committee highlighted that CAF members are required to seek permission to leave their duty station, and this includes specifying their location during leave on their CF100 form. In cases of emergency or mobilization, immediate access to members is essential. In accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 16 of the Queen's Regulations & Orders, it is reasonable for a CO to evaluate a member's travel plans and deny a leave request if such plans pose a risk to operational effectiveness. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that the FA deny the grievor redress.