# 2024-114 Pay and Benefits, Leave Travel Assistance – Indirect Travel, Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, Travel Expenses

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-04

The grievor challenged Area Support Unit (ASU) North's decision to deny payment of Northern Leave Travel Allowance (NLTA) benefits for his dependant under two years old in 2011 and 2012. He explained that in 2011, ASU North informed him that NLTA benefits no longer applied to children under two. He also stated that he did not purchase airfare for his dependant, as they drove during their leave. As redress, the grievor sought payment for the unpaid NLTA benefits for 2011 and 2012.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), acting as Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance, stating the grievor should have known he was aggrieved by 2012 and had filed the grievance over ten years late, beyond both the grievance process and Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) deadlines. The IA did not provide written reasons for why it was not in the interests of justice to consider the late submission, as required by Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) 7.06. 

The Committee sought clarification from the Deputy Director Compensation and Benefits who clarified that, under the 2010-2011 Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces, the NLTA was based on airfare costs. Since children under two typically did not require paid seats, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) interpreted that, in those cases, members were not eligible for the NLTA. This interpretation remained until members who had purchased tickets for infants challenged it, leading to a policy change limiting NLTA eligibility to cases where a seat is purchased.

The Committee explained that, although the CAF reinterpreted the policy in 2019 and acknowledged the grievor's eligibility, it refused to pay claims for the 2011–2012 period, citing the six-year limitation period under the CLPA. The Committee found this interpretation incorrect, clarifying that the limitation period began in 2020 when the policy change was communicated. It emphasized that limitation periods are procedural and should not be used to deny a legitimate benefit, especially when the CAF had mishandled the original policy. Additionally, article 203.05 of the QR&O allows for delayed claims under reasonable circumstances. The Committee rejected the CAF's argument that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the correct policy and found that the grievor remained entitled to NLTA benefits for 2011 and 2012. It recommended that the Final Authority (FA) approve payment of those benefits. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that the FA order a reassessment of the files of other CAF members in similar situations whose benefits may have been denied due to the incorrect application of the six-year limitation period.