# 2025-051 Pay and Benefits, Foreign Service Directives

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-02-19

In anticipation of her return from an outside Canada (OUTCAN) posting, the grievor submitted a request to have Ottawa, Ontario, recognized as her headquarters city rather than the location of the posting she held immediately prior to her OUTCAN posting, which was in Quebec. The purpose of this request was to establish her eligibility for educational benefits related to her child, who wished to pursue post-secondary studies at the University of Ottawa. After the Canadian Armed Forces denied her request to change her headquarters city, the grievor submitted a grievance, citing a 2019 precedent in which a similar change had been approved for a member posted OUTCAN for the purpose of establishing eligibility for education-related benefits. The grievor also argued that her child's predominantly English-language educational background would make it difficult to pursue university studies in French in the city where she had been posted previously. As redress, the grievor requested that Ottawa be recognized as her headquarters city for the final year of her OUTCAN posting and sought an explanation regarding the favourable decision rendered in 2019, maintaining that she should receive equivalent treatment.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the request, explaining that Foreign Service Directive (FSD) 34, which came into effect on 1 April 2019, limits postsecondary shelter assistance to dependent students attending an institution located in the member's headquarters city or last place of duty. Unlike the previous policy, this directive now imposes a geographic restriction. The IA indicated that, following consultations, the Treasury Board had confirmed that the FSDs are consistent with the principle of comparability with the federal public service and that no amendments were warranted.

After reviewing FSD 34 and Chapter 10 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces, the Committee concluded that the policies in force did not permit the designation of another city as the headquarters city in the grievor's circumstances. Consequently, the Committee found it reasonable to deny recognition of Ottawa for the purpose of determining the grievor's eligibility for education-related benefits for her dependent child. The Committee explained that, at the time she submitted her grievance, the grievor was still serving on an OUTCAN posting and that, in accordance with the applicable policy, her last posting location in Quebec remained her designated headquarters city. The Committee also noted that members posted to different places of duty may find themselves in situations where no post-secondary educational institution is available nearby. In such cases, a member's child may be required to leave the family home and reside on a campus. Postsecondary shelter assistance is intended specifically for situations in which a student must relocate as a result of a parent's OUTCAN posting. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority deny the grievor redress.