# 2024-099 Pay and Benefits, Discrimination, Land Duty Allowance, Medical Treatment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-10

The grievor grieved the cessation of her Land Duty Allowance (LDA) payments. Following an injury on duty resulting in medical limitations, the grievor received a Temporary Medical Category (TCat) allowing her to receive appropriate care while retaining her LDA. At the end of the 180 day TCat eligibility period, she had still not received treatment for her medical condition and remained unable to perform her work duties. In this context, the LDA payments ceased. In her grievance, the grievor argued that the delays in accessing care were the fault of the Canadian Armed Forces and had prevented her from receiving appropriate treatment within the prescribed time frame. For this reason, the grievor felt that despite her inability to perform her professional duties, she should have continued to receive the LDA. In addition, the grievor asserted that the applicable provisions set out in Chapter 205 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for Canadian Forces (CBI) were unfavourable compared with the protections afforded to civilian workers after injury on duty. As redress, the grievor requested financial compensation equivalent to the harm suffered.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable provisions and refused to offer the redress requested. In their decision, the IA said that the LDA paid to the grievor had ended on the 185th consecutive day that she was not at work. The IA also clarified that the grievor had indeed received medical care, notably from the Base Surgeon who had examined her file when assigning the medical categories.  

The Committee found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with CBI 205.33, which states that the LDA ends on the 181st day after the day when a member no longer holds a designated position due to medical limitations. As the grievor no longer met the required criteria after 185 days in a TCat, her LDA was terminated. The Committee mentioned that the LDA is intended to compensate for unfavourable working conditions and is not a right. With regard to the comparison between the benefits granted to military personnel and those granted to civilian workers, the Committee said that such an in depth examination would go beyond the scope of the grievance. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the redress sought. However, the Committee found that the three years it took for the IA to process the file constituted an excessive administrative delay.