# 2023-116 Careers, Education Allowance, Education Reimbursement Policies

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-19

The grievor contested the decision of the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) to deny his application for education funding under the Canadian Armed Forces Self-Development Program (CAFSDP) for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Theological Studies program. The denial was based on the assertion that education expense reimbursement for courses at non-Canadian institutions is not permitted for Primary Reserve members. The CDA also argued that, while Annex B of the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction (Mil Pers Instr) 01/21 provides for the selection of a non-Canadian institution, it lacks the ability to assess whether the standards and curriculum of such institutions are equivalent to those of Canadian universities or colleges. Additionally, the CDA claimed that “required courses” as defined in the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 210.801(2) only refers to courses offered by Canadian institutions. On the other hand, the grievor argued that Annex B of Mil Pers Instr 01/21 permits educational institutions outside of Canada if deemed equivalent to a Canadian university or college or accredited by a designated provincial authority. He highlighted that the institution where he sought to pursue a PhD in Ethics, is recognized by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Chaplain Branch and Canadian accrediting organizations. Additionally, he asserted that this specialized program would fill a gap in ethics training within the CAF and benefit the Defence Ethics program. The grievor requested that the CDA reconsider his application.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, stating that the grievor's chosen institution is not eligible for education reimbursement under CBI 210.801 because it is not accredited by a Canadian province or territory. The IA concluded that CDA does not have the authority to assess non-Canadian institutions. The grievor requested further review by the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that the IA had misinterpreted and misapplied the relevant policies. CBI 210.801 allows for reimbursement of education expenses for programs from non-Canadian institutions if the CDA determines their curriculum is comparable to Canadian standards and aligns with CAF interests. The Committee noted that the CDA has the authority to evaluate educational institutions under CF Mil Pers Instr 01/21 and could rely on existing accreditation for the grievor's chosen institution, which is recognized by Canadian and American associations and listed as a designated educational institution by the Government of Canada.

The Committee also recognized that the grievor's program addresses an identified gap in CAF ethics training and aligns with CAF interests, as outlined in CBI 210.801 and CF Mil Pers Instr 01/21. The Committee found the grievor aggrieved by the denial of his application and recommended that the FA afford the grievor redress by directing the CDA to review his application for the CAFSDP. Additionally, the Committee suggested that the FA consider directing the CDA to reassess other applications for non-Canadian institutions denied since August 2021, applying a correct interpretation of CBI 210.801.