# 2025-027 Pay and Benefits, Component Transfer, Recruitment Allowance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-06

The grievor considered himself aggrieved because he had been refused payment of the approved recruiting allowance for his military occupation retroactive to 1 April 2023 on the grounds that the effective date of his component transfer (CT) preceded the effective date set for eligibility for the recruiting allowance by 24 hours. He expressed his disappointment at the strict enforcement of the policy and hoped that a more flexible approach would take account of his situation. As redress, the grievor requested payment of the recruiting allowance that he would have received had his CT taken place on 1 April 2023 rather than the day before.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as Initial Authority (IA), concluded that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the policies and regulations in force, and granted him no redress. The IA clarified that paragraph 205.525(2) of Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) (Entitlement) established that several conditions must be satisfied in order to be entitled to a recruiting allowance, including the requirement that the member's occupation be under-strength on the date of application or transfer. The IA explained that the grievor's transfer date was prior to the effective date of the allowance approved for the grievor's occupation, and thus determined that he did not meet the eligibility requirements. The IA added that any policy change necessarily resulted in different treatment before and after it came into force, without it constituting inequity; rather, it was a normal administrative consequence. Finally, the IA reiterated that the rules governing the recruiting allowance had to be strictly applied to ensure consistency and fairness among members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Committee found that the grievor's situation did not meet the first criterion of CBI 205.525(2), since the grievor's occupation had not been declared under-strength on the date of his CT request or CT. The Committee noted that the decision to include the grievor's occupation in the list of under-strength occupations had been made two months after the grievor's CT (although the allowance had a retroactive effective date). Thus, there was no indication that the competent authorities had been aware of this forthcoming decision at the time of making a CT offer. Moreover, the Committee added that the grievor had accepted this offer without expecting to receive a recruiting allowance. The Committee felt that setting a precise effective date was necessary to ensure the consistent and fair application of policies, even if this might seem strict in individual cases. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the decision not to grant the grievor the recruiting allowance was fair and in accordance with the regulations.