# 2024-010 Pay and Benefits, Pilot's Pay and Promotion

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-02-19

The grievor disagreed with the Pay Increment (PI) he was granted on re-enrolment as a Pilot in the Regular Force. He argued that his qualifying service was incorrectly calculated from the date he attained Wings rather than his previously backdated promotion to Captain (Capt). The grievor also noted inequitable treatment in that some Pilots with the same Time in Rank received additional PIs on conversion to the new Pilot pay table, per Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Order 030/21 (Transition to New Pilot Pay Rates), while he did not. He further submitted that he was made to rely on misleading and inaccurate information about the implementation of the new Pilot pay structure and that it was unfair to retroactively apply policies that alter how his rate of pay was determined months after he re-enrolled. 

The Director Compensation and Benefits, designated as the Initial Authority, did not render a decision within the four-month timeframe as required by article 7.15(2) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces and the grievor requested referral to the Final Authority (FA) per article 7.15(4). 

The Committee found that the grievor's qualifying service should have been calculated from the date he was promoted to the rank of Capt, and not the date he attained Wings standard, in accordance with Canadian Forces General Message 209/11 - AMENDMENT TO RATE OF PAY AND PAY INCREMENT ANNIVERSARY DATE FOR CAPTS IN THE PLT OCCUPATION. As mentioned in a previous systemic recommendation (Committee File no. 2024-094), the Committee found that it is not unreasonable to treat Pilots serving on 1 April 2021 differently than those who were not, and the pay conversion instructions in CDS Order 030/21 go beyond the authority vested in the CDS in the applicable Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces. 

As such, the Committee could not recommend redress of equal treatment as it found that would not be in accordance with policy. Lastly, the Committee noted that the grievor's circumstances may meet the criteria set out the Supreme Court of Canada to assess liability for negligent representation. 

The Committee recommended that the FA afford the grievor redress by correcting his PI on re-enrolment to correspond with the correct calculation of qualifying service and by referring his file to the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation.