# 2024-288 Pay and Benefits, Judge Arbour Rec. 10 – sexual-related files

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-19

The grievor contested his early repatriation from his Outside of Canada (OUTCAN) posting contending that, following a complaint against him for sexual misconduct, the chain of command (CoC) was bias in their judgment and decision-making regarding his persona and posting. Therefore, the grievor requested financial compensation equivalent to 24 months of untaxed OUTCAN allowances. The Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff acting as the Initial Authority (IA) explained that the Compensation and Benefits Instructions, Chapter 10, Foreign Service Instructions, and Foreign Service Directives provided that members can only receive OUTCAN allowances while on post. Thus, the grievor was not eligible for these allowances after repatriation. The IA found that the grievor had been treated fairly, his repatriation process had followed policy, and he did not meet the eligibility criteria to receive OUTCAN allowances and accordingly, denied redress.

The Committee determined that, the reasons provided by the CoC for seeking an early repatriation included a potential guilty verdict and the impact of said verdict on the grievor's family affairs, better resources available to the grievor to prepare himself for court martial upon repatriation, and meeting the unit operational needs, which had already been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee found no indication that the grievor's CoC had assumed his guilt. Additionally, the CoC's reasons for seeking the grievor's early repatriation were reasonable and the proper procedures were followed for the repatriation recommendation from OUTCAN. Furthermore, the Committee concurred with the IA that OUTCAN benefits are intended to support members serving abroad, and their entitlement to these benefits ceases on the date of their departure from the post. Therefore, the payment of these entitlements for any period during which the grievor did not spend OUTCAN would be unjustified. The Committee concluded that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.