# 2024-178 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instruction, Travel Expenses

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-13

When the grievor was assigned to temporary duty (TD) for his training internship, he received partial reimbursement of the total amount claimed for travel expenses. The grievor's internship ended earlier than planned, on Friday evening rather than on Sunday, and he decided to shorten his hotel stay and spend the night in private accommodation before getting on the road the next day. The grievor submitted a claim for reimbursement that included the nights spent in commercial accommodation, one night in private accommodation as well as meals up to Saturday lunch and incidentals. After the claim was recalculated several times, the grievor received a refund that fell short of his original request because he had not returned home at the end of the course. According to the grievor, since nothing is specified in the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions (CFTDTI) for mileage outside normal working hours, he feels that he was entitled to wait until the next morning after a full day's work in order to safely travel a distance of over 250 km, as indicated in the National Joint Council (NJC) Travel Directive.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that the grievor had not been aggrieved, since the calculation had been done in the most favourable manner by conducting recalculations, and that that reasonably compensated the grievor for the costs incurred. According to the IA, the NJC Travel Directives and its provision for travel after normal working hours did not apply to military personnel on TD, which is the sole responsibility of the CFTDTI.

The Committee established the argument that the NJC Travel Directive's limit on travel after a full day of work does not apply to Canadian Armed Forces members, and that the grievor should have returned home that evening at the end of the training. In addition, to determine whether the grievor was entitled to reimbursement of his night of private accommodation, meal expenses and incidentals for Saturday, reference must be made to the CFTDTI. Moreover, it was not the 250 km distance mentioned by the grievor that had to be considered, but rather the distance stipulated in CFTDTI 7.41 (2). The Committee found that the cost comparison rule of CFTDTI 7.40 applied to this situation, and that it was not unreasonable for the grievor not to want to travel after a day's work. The Committee found that the grievor had only claimed compensation that was reasonable and in accordance with the CFTDTI, and that he was entitled to the costs claimed.

The Committee recommended that the final authority grant the redress requested.