# 2025-072 Pay and Benefits, Maternity and Parental Allowance
Maternity and Parental Allowance (MATA-PATA)
Case summary
F&R Date: 2026-02-17
The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) calculation of the Parental Allowance (PATA) for Reserve Force (Res F) members. The grievor argued that the application of paragraph (2) of Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces (QR&O) article 203.065 - Computation of Entitlement, Forfeitures and Fines—Reserve Force–Other than Class “C” to determine the daily rate of pay for PATA results in a loss of five days of compensation per year because it takes the daily rate of pay and multiplies it by 30 to determine a monthly rate of pay; thus, PATA is calculated based on a 360-day year instead of a 365-day year.
The designated Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, did not render a decision within the prescribed time limit and the grievor requested referral to the Final Authority (FA) per QR&O 7.15(4). However, the Director Pay Policy and Development was consulted on this matter and defended the use of QR&O 203.065(2), arguing that allowances are calculated on the basis that each calendar month consists of 30 days, regardless of the actual number of days in the month.
The PATA policy is laid out at article 205.461 — Maternity and Paternity Allowance, of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces. It is described as a weekly allowance and provides the specific formula to calculate the weekly rate based on the daily rate of Res F pay established for the rank and pay increment held just before the period of maternity or parental leave. The Committee found that, as Chapter 205 did not provide any different definition of daily rate of pay, there is no other logical conclusion than to find that that rate is as set out in Chapter 204. The CAF instead applied QR&O 203.065, which is intended to set either a fine, which PATA is not, or to calculate a monthly allowance, which PATA also is not, since it is a weekly allowance. The Committee found that by doing so, the CAF were not applying the policy as approved by the Treasury Board.
As such, the Committee found that the grievor has been aggrieved and recommended the FA afford redress by directing that the grievor's file be sent to Director Military Pay and Allowances Processing to correct the error and his pay account be updated as appropriate.