# 2025-082 Pay and Benefits, Dependants, Foreign Service Directives

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-04-16

While posted Outside of Canada (OUTCAN), the grievor received only partial reimbursement of his Family Reunion Travel (FRT) claims for his two dependants subject to a custody agreement, in accordance with Foreign Service Directives (FSD) 51.10.6. In his grievance, the grievor argued that FRT under FSD 51 is discriminatory, as it resulted in unequal financial treatment for members with children subject to custody agreements when posted OUTCAN. He alleged that the policy unfairly limits his reimbursement for FRT based on his headquarters city in Canada and sought full reimbursement of past and future travel expenses, as well as a determination that the policy was discriminatory on the basis of family status. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, did not render a decision within four months of the date the grievance was received, and the grievor requested that the file be forwarded to the Final Authority (FA), in accordance with article 7.15 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces – Duties of Initial Authority

The Committee examined the application of the FSD for each of the grievor's dependents separately, taking into account their respective and unique circumstances.

For dependent #1, the Committee observed that they travelled from OUTCAN to visit the other parent in Canada and return as part of the grievor's obligation under a child custody agreement, and that FSD 51.10.4 was correctly applied. The Committee further noted that, consistent with the principle of comparability, FRT is intended to compensate for additional costs attributable to the posting. Specifically, the benefit is meant to cover reunification related expenses incurred by a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member over and above those that would have been incurred had the member been residing in Canada at their headquarters city. On this basis, the Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved and that he was treated in accordance with the applicable policy provisions.

For dependent #2, the Committee found that FSD 51.10.4 was incorrectly applied to the dependent's situation. The Committee explained that this provision applies when a CAF member is responsible for a dependant's travel to visit the other parent, which was not the case here. Instead, the dependent qualified as a “dependant student” under FSD 51.5, as they were under 21 years of age, remained in a dependent relationship with the grievor, and was travelling from their place of postsecondary studies in Canada to visit the grievor at the post. The Committee noted that the policy does not require the dependent student to reside at the educational institution and that the dependent's choice to live with their mother due to proximity to the college did not negate the grievor's entitlement to FRT. The Committee stated that the intent of the policy is to allow dependent students to travel between their location and the member's post abroad. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the FA afford the grievor reimbursement for the associated difference in costs with respect to dependent #2's travel.

Regarding discrimination based on family status, the Committee found no case of prima facie discrimination in that the grievor did not experience an adverse impact due to his family status. The FSD emphasizes the principle of comparability, stating that employees serving abroad should, as far as possible, be placed in neither a more nor less favourable situation than if they were serving in Canada. Also, FSD 51 supports family reunification and helps minimize family separation caused by an employee's assignment to a post.