Getting Redress Right: An investigation into the inequities Canadian Armed Forces members face when they have limited or no grievance rights

Mandate

The Office of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman was created in 1998 by Order-in-Council to improve transparency in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as to ensure the fair treatment of concerns raised by Canadian Armed Forces members, Departmental employees, and their families.

The Office is a direct source of information, referral, and education for the members of the Defence community. Its role is to help individuals access existing channels of assistance or redress when they have a complaint or concern. The Office is also responsible for reviewing and investigating complaints from constituents who believe they have been treated unfairly by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. In addition, the Ombudsman may investigate and report publicly on matters affecting the welfare of Canadian Armed Forces members, Department of National Defence employees, and others falling within their jurisdiction. The ultimate goal is to contribute to substantial and long-lasting improvements to the Defence community.  

Any of the following people may bring a complaint to the Ombudsman when the matter is directly related to the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces: 

• A current or former member of the Canadian Armed Forces
• A current or former member of the Cadets
• A current or former employee of the Department of National Defence
• An employee or former employee of the Staff of Non-Public Funds, CF
• A person applying to become a member
• A member of the immediate family of any of the above-mentioned
• An individual attached or seconded to the Canadian Armed Forces

The Ombudsman is independent of the military chain of command and senior civilian management and reports directly to the Minister of National Defence.

Abbreviation Guide

CAF

Canadian Armed Forces

CAFRD

Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive

CBI

Compensation and Benefits Instructions

CDS

Chief of the Defence Staff

CFGA

Canadian Forces Grievance Authority

CFTDTI

Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions

CMP

Chief of Military Personnel

CPCC

Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture

DAOD

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives

DCBA

Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration

DCB Griev

Director Compensation and Benefits – Grievances

DGCB

Director General of Compensation and Benefits

DND

Department of National Defence

FA

Final Authority

FSD

Foreign Service Directives

IA

Initial Authority

MFSI

Military Foreign Service Instructions

MGERC

Military Grievances External Review Committee

NJC

National Joint Council

QR&O

Queen's Regulations & Orders

WGA

Working Group A

WGB

Working Group B

Executive Summary

In 2023, we launched a systemic investigation into military complaint mechanisms. This investigation focuses on instances where CAF members have limited or no rights to grieve. 

We focused our work on the CAF’s limited authority to resolve grievances related to military compensation and benefits, which results from them being Treasury Board-approved policies. We identified how the CAF’s limited authority to resolve grievances related to military compensation and benefits makes the military grievance process ineffective for providing redress. This negatively affects CAF members and the CAF as an institution. 

The most notable inequity we noted resulted from CAF members not having access to a grievance review to determine if they were treated within the intent or "spirit" of the directive. The result is a disparity in benefits and longer resolution time when compared to civilians. This has a negative effect on morale and trust in the CAF.

Our recommendations, if implemented, will bring lasting improvements for the wellness of CAF members. We recognize and are encouraged by the ongoing CAF Grievance Process Transformation that aims to streamline the grievance process and address longstanding issues. We support this initiative and will continue monitoring the progress.

Section I: Introduction

We launched this investigation in August 2023 to identify inequities that Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members may face in the military grievance process. We sought to identify gaps in this process and some of the impacts on members and the CAF.

The military grievance process allows members to address issues that stem from their service in the CAF. Since the establishment of our office, we have monitored and reported issues within the military grievance process and their impacts on CAF members.

In the 2021 Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence, Justice Morris J. Fish noted that the CAF "is morally obliged to make up to its members for the risks they take and the rights they forego. It is bound to provide them with a better system of redress than its unacceptable grievance system now provides – nearly 20 years after its grievance system was found ‘unacceptable’ by Chief Justice Lamer. Delays of this sort undermine discipline, exemplify inefficiency and sap morale."^{Footnote 1}

We focused this investigation on the CAF’s limited authority to resolve grievances related to military compensation and benefits, which are Treasury Board-approved directives and instructions. The Treasury Board is the sole authority for regulating the compensation and benefits of CAF members,^{Footnote 2} making the military grievance process ineffective for resolving complaints or providing redress. This becomes apparent when CAF members exhaust the military grievance process only to find out when the Final Authority renders their decision that they do not have the authority or means to provide redress. This affects members’ morale and trust in the CAF.

To gain a better understanding of the issue, we:

• reviewed complaints received by our office,
• interviewed DND/CAF senior leaders occupying positions of authority within the military grievance process (Initial Authority and Final Authority)
• interviewed DND/CAF senior leaders with oversight and administration responsibilities, and
• consulted the Senior Director of Union Engagement and NJC Support for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to gain a better understanding the National Joint Council Committees and sub-committees.

The CAF Grievance Process Transformation, announced in November 2023, intends to bring significant changes to the grievance process. Our report aims to complement and inform this transformation while we continue to monitor its progress.

For more information on our investigative process, review Appendix III: Methodology.

Section II: Context

The role of the Treasury Board

According to the Financial Administration Act (R.S.C 1985, c. F-11), the Treasury Board has sole responsibility over the management of federal government expenditure. To promote efficiency within the departments, the Treasury Board delegates certain spending authorities to ministers and deputy heads, who can in turn assign such powers to individuals under their jurisdiction.^{Footnote 3} The Treasury Board is also the employer for the core public administration. It has the authority to create mandatory policies and common standards for administrative, personnel, financial, and organizational practices across government. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is the central agency that acts as the administrative arm of the Treasury Board.^{Footnote 4}

Although the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is charged with the control and administration of the CAF^{Footnote 5}, the Treasury Board retains the power to determine and regulate payment of compensation and benefits for CAF members.^{Footnote 6}

National Joint Council

The National Joint Council (NJC), is a council of representatives from the employer (Treasury Board), bargaining agents and separate employers, not including representatives of the CAF. However, the NJC Foreign Service Directives (FSD) committee employer side, includes a representative from DND/CAF. Through the NJC, various directives are co-developed. These directives provide public service-wide benefits.^{Footnote 7}

The CAF is not represented at the NJC table in development of policies. The Treasury Board exclusively develops other benefits and policies that apply to the CAF without NJC consultation. Due to the nature of their work, CAF members are subject to a separate Treasury Board-approved package for foreign service benefits called the Military Foreign Service Instructions (MFSI).^{Footnote 8} However, some FSDs negotiated at the NJC are the same for both public service employees and CAF members. For instance, the MFSI Section 12 - Education and Related Care of Dependent Children refers directly to FSD Part V - Education and related care of dependent children.^{Footnote 9} This means that if a public servant and a CAF member relocate with their respective families outside Canada, their dependents are entitled to the same benefits under this section of the FSD.

The Military Grievance Process

"The National Defence Act gives CAF members the right to make a formal complaint called a ‘grievance’ about any decision, act or omission which affects them personally and results from service in the CAF." ^{Footnote 10}

A grievance must comply with the general limits outlined in Queen’s Regulations & Orders (QR&O) Chapter 7 – Grievances, under:

• Exceptions to the Right to Grieve,^{Footnote 11} and
• Time Limit to Submit Grievance.^{Footnote 12}

Further, Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 2017-1, Military Grievance Process, indicates that:

• The military grievance process is available to CAF members who are in the Regular Force or any sub-component of the Reserve Force^{Footnote 13} who submit a grievance before their release.^{Footnote 14}
• Grievances are assessed for timeliness and ensured that the matter is grievable.^{Footnote 15}

CAF members rely heavily on the military grievance process to address their concerns and they are prohibited from forming unions and do not have contracts of employment.^{Footnote 16} For this reason, they must grieve individually and without representation during the military grievance process. Unlike the civilian grievance process, the military grievance process does not require a mandatory offer of informal resolution and in-person hearings with the grievor present.^{Footnote 17}

The military grievance process represents an ongoing source of frustration for CAF members and the CAF, with delays being one of its ongoing problems at both the Initial Authority (IA) and Final Authority (FA) levels. For instance, in 2023, it took on average 1155 calendar days for grievance files to go through the IA, the FA and the Military Grievance External Review Committee (MGERC^{Footnote 18}). For files that did not go through MGERC, the average processing time was 815 calendar days.^{Footnote 19} Between April 2019 and August 2023, our office received approximately 300 complaints related to complaint mechanisms, most of which concerned the military grievance process.

CAF members can submit a grievance for various reasons such as terms of service, benefits, health care, and promotion. "Careers" is the most common grievance category, followed by "compensation and benefits." As we discuss in detail throughout the report, CAF members can grieve Treasury Board-approved policies, but the CAF have a limited ability to provide redress due to the constraints of those policies under the authority of the Treasury Board.

Conflict Solutions and Services

Conflict Solutions and Services (CSS), formerly known as Integrated Complaint and Conflict Management (ICCM), reached full operational capacity in July 2018. The ICCM program’s goals were:

• To give CAF members and the chain of command better resources for submitting, tracking, and resolving a complaint,
• To manage personnel complaints and conflicts faster, and
• To combine existing CAF harassment, grievance and conflict resolution systems, such as the Alternate Dispute Resolution.^{Footnote 22}

In a letter received by our office from the Minister of National Defence in November 2018, ICCM was described as "[a] secure registration, tracking, and case management system [that] assists leaders at all levels by providing better awareness, which facilitates the management of their conflict and complaint portfolios in real time. Accurate tracking and monitoring of all files also aids in the establishment of trust by providing transparency and the removal of any opportunity for retaliation, real or perceived."^{Footnote 23}

CSS helps members of the Defence Team to submit, track, and resolve complaints. It also helps the Department to identify systemic issues and offers dispute resolution services. CAF members can contact their local Conflict and Complaint Management Services (CCMS) office or access CSS online for support on submitting a formal complaint or dealing with a conflict.^{Footnote 24}

 

Section III: Findings

During this investigation, we examined the inequities and impacts for CAF members in situations where they have limited or no rights to grieve compensation and benefits decisions.

The Treasury Board is the sole authority for regulations related to the compensation and benefits of CAF members, while their administration falls under the mandate of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.^{Footnote 25} These regulations are prescribed via various instruments, including:

• Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI)
• Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD)
• Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions (CFTDTI)
• applicable Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&Os)^{Footnote 26}

The CAF are bound by Treasury Board policies for the compensation and benefits of members and cannot override the intent or Treasury Board interpretation of those policies. The CDS indicated that the "[Treasury Board] is the sole authority when it comes to that interpretation. And if we were to do otherwise, it would contravene the Treasury Board and cause more problems."^{Footnote 27} The Director Compensation and Benefits Grievances (DCB Griev) offered that departing from Treasury Board interpretation can create inequity if CAF members were to receive different benefits than public service employees.^{Footnote 28}

Examples exist where CAF members use the military grievance process only to find out when the CDS (FA) renders their decision—months or years later—that the FA cannot provide the redress.^{Footnote 29} This is especially prevalent in grievances related to compensation and benefits. Between 1 July 2019 and 31 August 2023, our office received 13 complaint files about a decision citing "no authority to depart from Treasury Board-approved policy."^{Footnote 30} Some decisions stemmed from the adjudication process, while others from the military grievance process.^{Footnote 31}

Our 2010 report The Canadian Forces Grievance Process: Making It Right for Those Who Serve highlighted challenges within the military grievance process, namely the CDS’s lack of authority to settle financial aspects in grievances. In 2012, CDS received delegated authority from the Treasury Board to grant ex gratia payments within the military grievance process.^{Footnote 32} While this change afforded the CDS some latitude to settle financial grievances, its impact was marginal. Ex gratia payments rarely occur due to the strict criteria imposed by the Treasury Board, including not to fill gaps in Treasury Board policies.^{Footnote 33} The CDS applies ex gratia payments independently from the policy framework for compensation and benefits and these payments are not a means of overriding Treasury Board interpretation.

The CDS has no financial discretion when serving as the FA of a grievance since only the Treasury Board can regulate the compensation and benefits of CAF members. Both the CDS and Associate Assistant Deputy Minister Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture (Associate ADM CPCC) raised this in correspondence and interviews. The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA) also reported that "[the] gap is the absence of authority to depart from Treasury Board-regulated financial instruments. As [the] FA, the CDS has no discretion in financial matters."^{Footnote 34}

The NJC, is a council of representatives from the employer (Treasury Board), bargaining agents and separate employers, not including representatives of the CAF. However, the NJC FSD committee employer side, includes a representative from DND/CAF. Through the NJC, various directives are co-developed. These directives provide public service-wide benefits.^{Footnote 35} "Any employee who feels aggrieved by the interpretation or application of an NJC directive or policy must process [their] grievance through the NJC [grievance] procedure. Grievances must be supported by the bargaining agent concerned. If a grievance is not resolved through the NJC process, the employee, with the agreement and support of [their] bargaining agent, may proceed to adjudication under the [Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act]. Employees in excluded positions do not have the right to grieve through the NJC procedure."^{Footnote 36} CAF members do not have the right to access the NJC grievance procedure to challenge a decision under an NJC directive. The NJC By-Laws state that this procedure only applies to an employee in a Bargaining Unit where both the Employer and the Bargaining Agent participate in Council.^{Footnote 37} For CAF members, the military grievance process applies.^{Footnote 38}

The NJC website states, that for NJC grievances, "[the] criterion for reviewing grievances is the intent of the directive. Final level hearings are fact-finding inquiries designed to discover whether an employee has been treated within the intent of the directive. This contrasts with the formal adjudication under the Public Service Staff Relations Act where the test is the meaning of the specific words in a collective agreement."^{Footnote 39} CAF members do not have the right to access the NJC grievance procedure and must follow the military grievance process. Unlike the NJC grievance procedure, the military grievance process does not afford grievance authorities the ability to determine if the CAF treated a CAF member within the intent of the NJC directive. It can make grievance decisions based only on the plain language of the article.

Impacts

Strict compliance with Treasury Board interpretation promotes consistency in the allocation of benefits across the CAF. However, it leaves little room for finding solutions to the unique problems CAF members face because of operational demands and completely different working environments than public service employees, such as CAF postings. It also precludes decision makers from exercising judgement when it comes to potential policy gaps, inequities, or cost savings (business cases). These differences could also lead to inequalities: public servants could receive benefits due to the employer applying intent, rather than the plain language of the article used for CAF members.

The MGERC 2019 Annual Report recognized that requiring CAF members to submit a grievance only for the FA to explain they have no authority to provide redress is "inefficient and unfair."^{Footnote 41} This outcome also leads CAF members to an impasse if the FA found them to be aggrieved but without a possibility of redress.

As well, a grievance can take years to resolve even when no possibility of redress exists, leaving CAF members dissatisfied, with outstanding concerns.

Further, the CDS’s absence of authority in the financial aspects of grievances can erode CAF members’ trust in the military grievance process and the chain of command.

Finally, CAF members can face a financial disadvantage, even if they were found to be aggrieved. In some cases, the financial consequences can be significant.^{Footnote 43}

Alternative recourse options beyond the military grievance process

Judicial Review under the Federal Courts Act: In cases where the CAF does not have the authority or means to grant the redress sought, the only recourse noted in the FA’s decision is to apply for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act within 30 days of receipt of the grievance denial.^{Footnote 44} QR&O – 7.25 stipulates that an FA’s decision in the military grievance process is final and binding except for judicial review.^{Footnote 45} The Federal Court has previously held that, as the military grievance process in the CAF is "very peculiar" and the CDS is "highly specialized in rendering decisions" as the FA, a judicial review gives the CDS a "high degree of deference" when considering a challenge of the CDS' decision.^{Footnote 46} This may preclude CAF members from pursuing this recourse. Additionally, CAF members must pay out of pocket to pursue a Judicial Review, which can create an additional barrier. Not every CAF member can afford this last recourse.

Claim Against the Crown: CAF members also have the option to file a Claim Against the Crown to seek compensation for financial losses tied to their service in the CAF. These claims are evaluated and settled as a liability of the Crown or on an ex gratia basis.^{Footnote 47} Our 2010 report, The Canadian Forces Grievance Process: Making It Right for Those Who Serve, asserted it is unfair for CAF members to have to defer the financial portion of their grievance to a departmental lawyer, also noting the stressors and potential psychological impact involved: "the fact that these matters are referred to Director Claims and Civil Litigation is confusing and discouraging to Canadian Forces members."^{Footnote 48} Further, unlike judicial review, this process is not mentioned in the FA’s decision, and grievors may be unaware of its existence.

Ex gratia payment: Per DAOD 7004 – Claims By or Against the Crown and Ex Gratia Payments, "(2) Ex gratia payment means a benevolent payment made to anyone in the public interest by the Crown under the authority of the Governor in Council for loss or expenditure incurred for which there is no legal liability on the part of the Crown."^{Footnote 49} The CDS has the authority to offer financial restitution via ex gratia payment, but this mechanism is not intended to fill systemic gaps in the military grievance process or Treasury Board policy.^{Footnote 50} As of 2012, the CDS can grant ex gratia payments for up to $100,000 within the grievance process^{Footnote 51} to extend compensation while still upholding Treasury Board interpretation.^{Footnote 52}

The CDS must adhere to Treasury Board criteria for ex gratia payments and submit a quarterly report to the Deputy Minister. This report confirms that all ex gratia payments made within the military grievance process in the previous quarter were authorized according to the Canadian Forces Grievance Process Ex Gratia Payments Order.^{Footnote 53} The Director CFGA noted that the criteria for granting ex gratia payments are restrictive and rarely met.^{Footnote 54} The current CDS has only exercised this option six times during his tenure (since 25 November 2021).^{Footnote 55}

No mechanism exists for individual CAF members to request changes to the provision of a Treasury Board policy that they believe is unfair. DND/CAF senior leadership indicated in our interviews that the military grievance process is unsuitable for seeking changes to Treasury Board policies since the CAF are not the owner of those policies.^{Footnote 58}

The military grievance process can address policy misapplication

The Associate ADM CPCC, DGCB and Acting CMP all noted a trend whereby CAF members are using the military grievance process to seek the review and change of compensation and benefits instructions that they believe are unfair. They all clarified that CAF members can use the military grievance process to challenge decisions where a Treasury Board policy was applied incorrectly,^{Footnote 59} but not to express disagreement with the policy itself.^{Footnote 60} The same distinction applies to the adjudication process under the CAFRD: 1.3.01, "Disagreement with the relocation policy is not substantiation for departmental adjudication."^{Footnote 61}

The 2021 CDS Directive for CAF Grievance System Enhancement further supports this position, stating: "While I can review […] the interpretation of a policy, I cannot amend it, nor do I have any flexibility to interpret it in a way that was not intended. In short, I cannot grant any grievance whereby the grievor’s only request for redress is that a [Treasury Board] policy be amended or interpreted contrary to the plain language of the article."^{Footnote 62}

Conversely, the Associate ADM CPCC believed that CAF members should continue to raise policy concerns through the military grievance process (using the Digital Grievance Submission Form) as this can help identify policy gaps or inequities and inform positive change. This would also allow CPCC to identify trends and use as supporting evidence for policy change submissions to the Treasury Board.

Why CAF members submit grievances about policy

There is no internal CAF mechanism by which complaints about the provisions of a policy can be made. As such, CAF members are sometimes referred to the military grievance process when they have a policy concern. This raises questions about whether CAF members’ expectations are being managed at the unit level. Moreover, different authorities have differing views of what should be grieved and what falls under their respective areas of responsibilities and authorities during the grievance process.

On the other hand, we found that grievances about policy concerns often stem from a misconception about what the military grievance process can accomplish.

Moreover, most policy-centric grievances involve a financial component. DGCB shared that policies about compensation and benefits are at the core of what most CAF members want to see changed to allow for operational flexibility.

In DGCB’s 2020 Annual Report, it is reported that grievors were denied the redress sought over 50 percent of the time because the military grievance process is bound by Treasury Board policies.^{Footnote 63} The Administrative Response Centre^{Footnote 64} also reported that most policy interpretation requests the Centre receives relate to compensation and benefits.^{Footnote 65}

Treasury Board Submissions

The CAF engages the Treasury Board to make changes to instructions and directives through Treasury Board submissions. The Guidance for Drafters of Treasury Board Submissions states, "[Treasury Board] submissions are made on behalf of sponsoring ministers and are how the Treasury Board ministers assess, approve, defer or deny the authorization that departments seek."^{Footnote 66} The CAF prioritize policy files requiring a Treasury Board submission by the state of readiness/urgency, resource availability, interdependencies, and support from integration, legal, and governance teams.^{Footnote 67}

Previously, the FA directed DGCB to bring an individual case forward to the Treasury Board. However, this can create false hope and expectations for CAF members because the Treasury Board does not address individual cases.^{Footnote 68}

DGCB receives input from many different avenues^{Footnote 69} for changes to policies and tries to address systemic issues on members' behalf through Treasury Board submissions. CMP also makes two submissions a year to Treasury Board Secretariat with changes in addition to administrative letters to seek changes to CBIs, for example.  However, submissions themselves do not guarantee success in changing policies.^{Footnote 70}

The CAF identify areas of concern for Treasury Board submissions through the number of grievances received, policy cyclical reviews, or by order of the CDS. Priority is placed on requests that come from the CDS or those that will benefit the most people.^{Footnote 71}

While this approach may be more efficient than reviewing policy-centric grievances individually, limitations exist. The process is lengthy and has no guarantee of approval, especially when financial implications are involved.^{Footnote 72} The Treasury Board only accepts a finite number of submissions per year due to the time and resources required to process them.^{Footnote 73} Finally, the Director CFGA noted that the success rate for Treasury Board submissions for systemic issues is low.^{Footnote 74}

Alternate recourse options before considering a grievance

Depending on the issue, CAF members may have other, more effective ways to challenge a policy beyond filing a policy-centric grievance. CAF senior leadership noted that members can engage the adjudication process before escalating to a grievance, for example, if they have incurred relocation expenses.^{Footnote 75}

Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) can exercise delegated Ministerial Authority within this process to grant reimbursement to CAF members facing unique circumstances not covered in policy.^{Footnote 76} As per CBI 208.01 – Special Powers of the Minister, "[the] Minister may approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred by an officer or non-commissioned member or their dependants that are directly related to, or that arise directly out of, the member’s relocation and that are not specifically provided for in this chapter, but only if such reimbursement would be equitable and consistent with the purpose of this chapter."^{Footnote 77}

As DGCB Griev noted, these Treasury Board-approved instructions include Ministerial Authority provisions:

• CBI 10 – Military Foreign Service Instructions (MFSI),
• CBI 208 – Relocation (which includes CAFRD),
• CBI 209 – Transportation and Travelling Expenses, and
• Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions (CFTDTI)^{Footnote 78}

However, the use of Ministerial Authority must not create or expand a benefit already regulated by the Treasury Board and, when specified, must be reported and justified to the Treasury Board.^{Footnote 79}

Alternatively, CAF members can submit their concerns in writing to DGCB through their chain of command if they feel that a compensation and benefits policy does not meet their needs.^{Footnote 80}

Information on these processes is not readily available to CAF members. The policies for Ministerial Authority and the adjudication process do not draw a connection between the two, leaving space for ambiguity. Also, the submission process to DGCB is not advertised publicly, making it difficult for CAF members to inform themselves on these recourse options.

Impacts

In its current state, the military grievance process and tracking is not effective for influencing policy change for matters relating to compensation and benefits. This leaves CAF members without an option to address systemic concerns. Further, since 27 percent of grievances involve a financial component, the lack of redress authority for these issues can disadvantage CAF members. For instance, CAF members may be posted again before their grievance is resolved. This can result in a cumulative negative financial situation and compounding stressors on CAF members and their families.

Additionally, CAF senior leadership we interviewed expressed concerns regarding policy-centric grievances overburdening the grievance system, suggesting the need for a separate mechanism.

Between 1 July 2019 to 31 August 2023, the average completion time for compensation and benefits related grievances at the IA level was 202 days.^{Footnote 81}

The CDS noted that analyzing a batch of policy-centric grievances can lengthen processing times for other grievances in the queue.^{Footnote 82} The Acting Chief of Military Personnel (A/CMP) indicated that the lengthy military grievance process, combined with the absence of authority over Treasury Board policies, results in pressure on time and resources, and creates frustration for both members and CAF authorities.^{Footnote 83}

Observation

As of March 2024, our office has received an increasing number of complaints by CAF members who were misinformed about their entitlements to relocation benefits and incurred costs. For some members, their relocation was related to their last move (Intended Place of Residence) and only received the decision for their relocation benefits after they released from the CAF. Since the members have released, they no longer have the right to grieve and this leaves former members without recourse.^{Footnote 84}

CAF Initiatives

The CDS Directive for CAF Grievance System Enhancement proposed an ‘off-ramp' solution to flag policy-centric grievances early on and to divert them from the military grievance process for policy analysis.^{Footnote 85} During their interview, the CDS stated that the off-ramp could inform group submissions for the Treasury Board, while also decluttering the military grievance process.^{Footnote 86}

The ongoing CAF Grievance Process Transformation seems to be a step in the right direction. This includes the February 2024 launch of the new Digital Grievance Submission Form, which intends to create visibility in areas that require policy adjustments and identify systemic issues. We will continue to monitor the progress of this initiative. Refer to Appendix IV: CAF Grievance Process Transformation for more information.

Conflict Solutions and Services (CSS) helps members of the Defence Team submit, track, and resolve complaints, on top of assisting the Department in detecting systemic issues and contributing to dispute resolution. CAF members can contact their local Conflict and Complaint Management Services (CCMS) office to help them choose the best resolution process and track complaints into a national database.^{Footnote 87}

Despite this, the military grievance process is still predominantly paper-based, which results in difficulties tracking individual submissions and capturing systemic issues. The Associate ADM CPCC reported that the CAF cannot easily identify and use trends relating to policy-centric grievances as evidence-based arguments to support policy change submissions. Also, the CAF cannot meaningfully engage with the Treasury Board or have policy discussions until they can leverage trend-based data about the problems.^{Footnote 88}

Impacts

The CAF are unable to easily identify and use trends relating to policy-centric grievances as evidence-based arguments to support submissions for compensation and benefits changes to the Treasury Board.^{Footnote 89}

CAF Initiatives

The intent of the CPCC’s CAF Grievance Process Transformation is to grow expertise and analytical capacity. The Grievance Centre of Expertise (GCoE) is scheduled to be established in fall 2024. The new role is intended to track all incoming and outgoing correspondence and report on data analytics, information management, and requests for information. The Digital Grievance Submission Form, which is already in effect, aims to help capture topics being grieved and allow for trend identification.

We will continue to monitor the progress of this initiative. Refer to Appendix IV: CAF Grievance Process Transformation for more information.

Various sources have some information on grievances, but no definitive source with all information exists.^{Footnote 90}

Also, a lapse seems to exist in continuity and experience in handling grievances across units in the CAF. CAF senior leadership interviewed, including DCB Griev, DGCB, Acting CMP and the Associate ADM CPCC, reported low levels of awareness regarding grievance rights and limitations among leaders, such as Commanding Officers, chains of command, Orderly Rooms Staff, Policy Administrators and those assisting CAF members.^{Footnote 91}

Justice Fish’s Report identified a need for better training for assisting CAF members on how to help grievors navigate the formal process, and for mandatory training on grievances for all CAF recruits, including information on grievance rights and limitations, both during and beyond the military grievance process (for example, judicial review).^{Footnote 92}

Screening of military grievances

CAF members can try to resolve their concerns informally through their chain of command, administrators, and service providers before filing a grievance.^{Footnote 93}

Before filing a grievance, CAF members are encouraged to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to grieve. Justice Fish’s Report outlines the advantages of an NOI, such as promoting early and informal resolution, ensuring that a matter is grievable, alerting Commanding Officers to potential issues under their command, and reducing the number of grievances.^{Footnote 94} However, a NOI to grieve does not extend the time limit within which a CAF member must submit a grievance.^{Footnote 95}

We also heard concerns about CAF members grieving matters that are not grievable, in which case the IA would return the submission to the grievor. For example, if a member is seeking the restoration of their reputation, the grievance authority has no means to fulfill a request of that nature.^{Footnote 96} The Associate ADM CPCC indicated that it could take several years to find out that the subject of a grievance is not grievable and this can be very frustrating for CAF members.^{Footnote 97}

According to the Associate ADM CPCC, Commanding Officers and administrators lack the training opportunities and experience to navigate the military grievance process. For instance, a Commanding Officer may encounter few grievances while serving in the position and, therefore, not gain any relevant experience.^{Footnote 98} This issue is compounded for Reserve Force Commanding Officers who serve on a part-time basis. Other reported barriers to awareness include turnover, operational tempo, and the complexity of the military grievance process.

Some grievance training and resources are only available on the Defence intranet, Defence Wide Area Network (DWAN), and not everyone can access them.^{Footnote 99} Moreover, the Grievance Analyst and Assisting Member training is available on the Defence Learning Network^{Footnote 100} and requires D365 credentials to access the training.

The 'Grievances in the Canadian Armed Forces' webpage^{Footnote 101} refers CAF members and Commanding Officers to Conflict and Complaint Management Services.

Finally, the information available on the internet related to compensation and benefits does not provide details on addressing issues outside the grievance process, such as the adjudication process.

Lack of policy expertise

CAF members—and those they turn to for guidance on submitting a grievance—lack knowledge and information about policy, particularly compensation and benefits. This can contribute to CAF members filing more grievances, even on issues that could be resolved locally with a simple policy clarification.

DCB Griev noted that the best way forward is to address the underlying issue of complaints, in this case, by providing more training in compensation and benefits.^{Footnote 102}CAF members can also find more information on their entitlements through their chain of command or by contacting the Administrative Response Centre.^{Footnote 103}

Impacts

The lack of grievance expertise at the unit level creates additional inefficiencies and delays when the process is not followed correctly, by way of improper or missing documentation, or missed timelines. This can lead to improper vetting of a grievance at the unit level, and frustration with leadership and the military grievance process. Low awareness of compensation and benefits instructions can also lead to increased administrative errors and improper application of benefits, resulting in more grievances.

CAF Initiatives

According to the CPCC, the CAF Grievance Process Transformation aims to improve chain of command oversight and their understanding of grievances. Using a "human-centric, trauma-informed approach," the proposed new system aims to:

• focus on leadership engagement to facilitate the early resolution of issues,
• promote a climate where CAF members feel acknowledged and supported, and
• increase the focus on healthy workplaces and the restoration of relationships.

Under the proposed new system for fall 2024, the Grievance Centre of Expertise (GCoE) Grievance Liaison Officers will provide guidance to grievors, the chain of command, and adjudicators. The Implementation Office, within GCoE, will support grievors by ensuring timely follow-up on grievance decisions. Subject Matter Expert (SME) will support the chain of command for grievance decisions through analysis and decision writing.

In February 2024, CPCC launched the Digital Grievance Submission Form to help CAF members and chains of command access and navigate the military grievance process. This aims to streamline the information included in grievance submissions, propose informal resolution options, and filter out matters that are not grievable.

We will continue to monitor the progress of this initiative. Refer to Appendix IV: CAF Grievance Process Transformation for more information.

As previously mentioned, the NJC is a council of representatives from the employer (Treasury Board), bargaining agents and separate employers, not including representatives of the CAF. However, the NJC Foreign Service Directives (FSD) committee employer side, includes a representative from DND/CAF. Through the NJC, various directives are co-developed.

At the NJC, representatives share information, consult, and co-develop public service-wide benefits.^{Footnote 104} These discussions result in NJC directives. NJC Working Committees carry out the work of the Council, including hearing civilian grievances (with the support of a bargaining unit), conducting cyclical reviews, and providing recommendations on requests for interpretation.^{Footnote 105} Although the CAF, as employer, is represented in NJC working committees, the representatives and designated coordinator roles, authorities, and responsibilities are not clear within the CAF. As a result, the CAF may not be adequately represented when committees discuss and determine directives impacting CAF benefits. 

Designated Departmental Coordinators and Representatives for CAF

Departments have Designated Departmental Coordinators^{Footnote 106} who have roles and responsibilities in the administration of NJC directives within their organization.^{Footnote 107}  Within the CAF, information about the roles and responsibilities for the Designated Departmental Coordinators and Working Group A (WGA) and WGB representatives is not readily available.^{Footnote 108}

The CAF have Designated Departmental Coordinators who serve as the departmental contact on specific directives and would be invited to participate in working committees coordinated by Treasury Board Secretariat to receive information on the NJC directives.

The DND/CAF also has representatives at WGA and WGB interdepartmental coordinating committees which relate specifically to the FSD.

For both Designated Departmental Coordinators and WGA and WGB representatives, this is not their primary duty. The workload and conflicting priorities may make it difficult for the representatives to fully dedicate themselves to this role. This is further complicated by the complex administration of compensation and benefits, and the significant ramifications involved when analyzing and recommending their approvals. This process can also be lengthy and cause issues with continuity and knowledge transfer, as some DND/CAF representatives are uniformed members who may be posted every two to three years in and out of these roles.

Authorities of CAF decision makers 

Several parties are involved in the administration of Treasury Board-regulated benefits, including CAF members, chains of command, DND/CAF representatives at FSD committees, and CAF grievance authorities. The information about their respective roles and responsibilities is not easily available or clear to even those occupying the roles. 

We found examples of this in MGERC case summaries. The administration of Education and Related Care of Dependent Children benefits has been a point of contention for CAF members and grievance authorities.

In one example, a CAF member posted outside Canada grieved a denial of a Family Reunion Travel Allowance (FRTA) for their son and the grievance was denied contrary to the applicable policy:

The Initial Authority denied the grievance since "the grievor's son was a full-time employee of the Canadian Armed Forces and was not financially reliant on the grievor for basic needs, that he did not meet the Treasury Board-approved criteria to be deemed a child for the purposes of Foreign Service Directive (FSD) 51."

However, "The Committee [MGERC] found that the grievor was eligible to claim the FRTA benefit in respect of his dependent son as all relevant criteria set out in FSD 51 had been met. The Committee noted that the Children's Education Management had introduced a disqualifying criterion that was not supported by applicable policy. As such, it was determined that the grievor's application for the FRTA was not administered in accordance with policy."^{Footnote 109}

A second example illustrates the struggle between Working Group B's (WGB) recommendation, the Treasury Board delegated special powers and the hierarchy of the military chain of command. This case relates to a CAF member posted to Europe with his spouse and children. Their children, except the youngest, were enrolled in a private school. When the CAF member requested to have their youngest enrolled in the same private school it was denied. The CAF member submitted a grievance.

"The initial authority rejected the grievance. He explained that the public schools near the grievor's home were compatible with Canadian schools. He therefore concluded that the youngest child could be enrolled in one of the schools authorized by Working Group B."

"[T]he Committee [MGERC] concluded that the FSD did not provide for reimbursement of fees for sending the youngest child to the same school as the older siblings. The Committee therefore recommended [to the FA] that the grievance be denied."

However, the CDS as FA, found that "the directorate responsible for the management of dependant education had erred in finding that the school in the grievor's neighborhood was offering a curriculum compatible to Canadian schools [...] The CDS invoked the special powers of the Minister of National Defence under CBI 10.2.02(1) and ordered CMP to pay the education allowance to the grievor for his youngest child."^{Footnote 110}

Impacts 

The lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of DND/CAF representatives at FSD committees, their frequent postings, and the complexity of compensation and benefits negatively impacts the CAF. It can cause an underrepresentation of CAF-specific issues when determining military compensation and benefits.

If the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of CAF authorities are unclear, there are concerns this could cause an underrepresentation of CAF-specific issues when determining military versus public service compensation and benefits.

Confusion about the different roles of CAF authorities within the grievance process erodes trust for CAF members and leadership and can also negatively impact interdepartmental relationships. This confusion can leave CAF members without redress^{Footnote 111} and facing longer delays to resolve their issues when compared to represented Public Service employees who can access the NJC Grievance and have their case reviewed based on the intent of the policy.

There are many NJC directives, one of which are the FSDs. The FSDs set out the allowances and benefits for public service employees serving on assignments outside of Canada.^{Footnote 112} WGB is a forum for interdepartmental consultation and recommendation by departmental representatives on the interpretation and application of the FSDs.^{Footnote 113} They ensure consistency in the application of benefits across departments, which is why certain provisions require committee recommendations.^{Footnote 114}

CAF members, through their Children’s Education Management (CEM) representative, can engage WGB to review the interpretation and application of benefits under FSD 34 Education Allowances, or to request approval of benefits under FSD 34 outside the established parameters.^{Footnote 115} Based on complaints received by our office, some CAF members were not provided with the opportunity to review the file before it was presented to WGB.^{Footnote 116}This lack of transparency may result in cases being presented to WGB with incorrect or missing information. This can impact the outcome of the recommendation and decision. In the same cases received, CAF members did not receive a copy of WGB’s recommendation, a key piece required if they were to grieve the decision. The circumstances described in complaints we received highlight the need for transparency and procedural fairness within the CAF’s process to submit a file to WGB and to receive the recommendation from WGB to promote fair outcomes. 

Impacts 

As reported in our 2020 investigation Engaged in the World: A systemic investigation into the administration of postings, assignments and employments of Defence Team personnel outside of Canada, families mentioned feeling left out of the process, inadequately informed of the status of their requests, and doubtful of the representation they received.^{Footnote 117} These barriers can impact CAF members’ trust in the resolution process and result in different treatment than Public Service employees posted to same locations.^{Footnote 118} This can result in significant negative financial impacts for CAF members. With no other recourse, should the members choose to grieve the decision, they will experience lengthy delays and very low possibility of redress, given the limited authority of the FA in resolving compensation and benefits grievances.^{Footnote 119}

CAF Initiatives 

In March 2024, DGCB reported that CAF members’ requests for WGB are now reviewed thoroughly, are well prepared, documented, and presented. DGCB believes that WGB has been able to make their recommendations based on clear and well supported cases.^{Footnote 120} We will continue to monitor this progress along with Recommendation 10 of Engaged in the World. We include information about how to submit a case to WGB in Part B of our Educational webpage ABCs of OUTCAN postings.

The formal process for updating and negotiating NJC directives is through cyclical review.^{Footnote 121} Each year, the NJC establishes a schedule for the review of directives, which may vary from 3 to 5 years, or sometimes longer.^{Footnote 122} This periodic review of NJC’s directives ensures that terms and conditions of employment for employees are up to date.^{Footnote 123} The FSD committee conducts the cyclical review, and the CAF take part in the negotiations.^{Footnote 124} In the past, the results of these policy change negotiations have not been well-communicated to CAF members, despite the changes impacting them.

For instance, during a past cyclical review, changes were made to FSD 34.6 – Postsecondary Shelter Assistance. Effective 1 April 2019, changes were made to the eligibility for postsecondary shelter assistance without transitional provisions. This impacted CAF members already screened in for a posting outside Canada (OUTCAN) whose dependents had enrolled in the school year of 2019-2020.^{Footnote 125} A DND/CAF representative attended the negotiations, but it is not clear if they advised the committee of the posting screenings cycle when considering the implementation date. The NJC announced the upcoming changes to this benefit on 11 March 2019.^{Footnote 126} However, the CAF communicated this to members only after the effective date of 1 April 2019. CAF members were not afforded the opportunity to make informed decisions related to their postings.^{Footnote 127} Some CAF members suffered negative financial impacts.  

Impacts

MGERC raised in their 2021 Annual Report that "[p]ublishing key changes to those benefits without providing adequate notice to CAF members can be financially harmful to those members. Moreover, asking CAF members to interpret a new policy, with little or no guidance available from the relocation advisors, can lead to misinformed decisions costing CAF members significant sums of money."^{Footnote 128}

CAF Initiatives 

The CAF are working towards better coordination with the Treasury Board and increased involvement in cyclical reviews. DCBA represented the CAF during the submission of the 2023 FSD cyclical review in April 2023, where they proposed amendments to improve FSDs affecting CAF members. We will continue to monitor the progress of the CAF initiatives to ensure that representation improves. 

Section IV: Recommendations

Section V: Conclusion

Our investigation focused on the CAF’s limited authority to resolve grievances related to compensation and benefits related to military members, because they are Treasury Board-approved directives and instructions. We identified how the CAF’s limited authority to resolve these grievances makes the military grievance process ineffective for providing redress. This negatively affects CAF members and the CAF as an institution.

Throughout our investigation, we heard similar concerns to those previously raised in the Justices' Independent Reviews of the National Defence Act. The ongoing CAF Grievance Process Transformation aims to mitigate recurring issues in the military grievance process, to address the grievance backlog and to commit funds to allow review authorities to resolve grievances informally. 

Our investigation complements ongoing initiatives within the Canadian Armed Forces.

We found four main areas of concern:

• the CAF's lack of authority to provide redress,
• inadequate tracking of analytics and trends,
• low levels of awareness and expertise among CAF leadership, and
• a lack of clarity regarding the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of CAF representatives and grievance authorities.

The most significant inequity we found is that CAF members cannot access a grievance review to determine if the CAF treated them within the intent or "spirit" of the directive. We also found impacts on members and the CAF, most notably a negative effect on morale and trust in the CAF as an institution.

We also determined that the lack of awareness and experience around the submission of grievances at the unit level represents a complicating factor, especially when related to compensation and benefits. Other barriers to awareness include the operational tempo, high turnover, and the complexity of the military grievance process. This shortcoming leads to additional delays in the military grievance process, unrealistic expectations for resolution, and dissatisfaction among CAF members.

Finally, we found that many of those involved do not well understand the role that Treasury Board has in determining compensation and benefits related to military members. Information about responsibilities and authorities in consultation with NJC are not easily available to CAF members, chains of command, CAF representatives at FSD committees, and grievance authorities. Confusion about the different roles of CAF authorities within the grievance process erodes trust for CAF members and leadership and can also negatively impact interdepartmental relationships. Additionally, members face negative impacts and financial burdens when changes to compensation and benefits are not promptly communicated to them.

As CAF Reconstitution efforts continue, military complaint mechanisms enable decision-makers to affect systemic change and to modernize personnel policies. Our recommendations, if implemented, will bring lasting improvements for the welfare of CAF members and equitable treatment to resolve compensation and benefits issues. We recognize and are encouraged by the ongoing CAF Grievance Process Transformation which should streamline the grievance process and address longstanding issues. We support this initiative and will continue monitoring the progress.

Appendix I: Letter to the Minister of National Defence

17 May 2024

The Honourable Bill Blair, PC, COM, MP
Minister of National Defence
Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces

National Defence Headquarters
101 Colonel By Drive,
13th Floor, North Tower
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

Dear Minister Blair:

Please find enclosed the report, Getting Redress Right: an investigation into the inequities CAF members face when they have limited or no grievance rights.

This report makes seven (7) evidence-based recommendations. If accepted and implemented, these recommendations will bring long-lasting, positive change to CAF members. Additionally, our office believes timely implementation will assist the CAF’s efforts to fulfill its commitment made to the Defence community on grievance modernization in the 2024-2025 Departmental Plan. It will also contribute to addressing the concerns about the military grievance process highlighted in the 2021 Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence by Justice Fish and in the 2022 Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces by Justice Arbour. Additionally, the topic of this investigation and the related recommendations would be of interest for the President of the Treasury Board.

This report is submitted to you pursuant to paragraph 38(1)(b) of the Ministerial Directives in respect to the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. As is standard practice, we will be publishing the report no sooner than 28 days from the date of this letter. We would appreciate your response prior to publication so that it may be included in the final report. As in the past, we offer your staff a briefing on the report prior to its publication.

I look forward to your response to our recommendations.

Sincerely,

Gregory A. Lick
Ombudsman

Appendix II: Glossary

CAF Senior Leadership: In the context of this investigation, CAF senior leadership refers to senior CAF officials who participated in interviews with our office in support of this investigation.

Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA): oversees the Canadian Forces grievance system and administers the submission of grievances by Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members.^{Footnote 129}

Commanding Officer: Responsible for the leadership, employment, management, and readiness of their unit.

Conflict Solutions and Services (CSS): formerly known as Integrated Complaint and Conflict Management (ICCM) helps members of the Defence Team to submit, track, and resolve complaints. It also helps the Department to identify systemic issues and offers dispute resolution services.^{Footnote 130}

Final Authority (FA): The final level of review in the CAF redress of military grievance process. If the CAF member disagrees with the decision of the Initial Authority, they have the right to have the matter reviewed by the CDS or delegate as the Final Authority.^{Footnote 131}

Grievance: Complaint submitted by an officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act, or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces as no other redress process under the National Defence Act can resolve it.^{Footnote 132}

Impact: In the context of this investigation, impact refers to a negative effect of having limited or no grievance rights.

Initial Authority (IA): The first level of review in the CAF redress of military grievance process.^{Footnote 133}

Leadership: Members in a position of authority.

Military Grievances External Review Committee (MGERC): formerly the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB), reviews military grievances and provides findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces member who submitted the grievance. The Committee is an administrative tribunal independent from the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence and, as such, plays a unique role within the military grievance process.^{Footnote 134}

Primary Reserve Force: A sub-component of the Reserve Force that comprises of members working part-time with the military who also have full-time civilian employment or attend school. Primary Reserve members are employed under different Classes of Reserve Service.^{Footnote 135}

Recourse: Formal or informal process to address a complaint or a concern.

Regular Force: Full-time employment with personnel deploying in domestic and/or international operations. Regular Force Members are posted to bases and wings across the country, depending on their trade, career progression, and environment (sea/land/air/special operations).^{Footnote 136}

Supplementary Reserve: A sub-component of the Reserve Force^{Footnote 137} comprised of CAF members who have previously served in the Regular Force or another sub-component of the Reserve Force, or who did not have previous military experience when they enrolled but who do have special skills or expertise for which there is a military requirement.^{Footnote 138}

Unit: The organization in which the employee performs their positions' duties.^{Footnote 139}

 

Appendix III: Methodology

Our investigation focused on the CAF’s limited authority to resolve grievances related to military compensation and benefits, which fall under the Treasury Board’s purview. For this investigation, we limited our focus to Treasury Board regulated policies. This investigation covered the period from April 2019 to March 2024.

Investigative plan:  

We used a mixed-method approach, including qualitative and quantitative data, as well as analysis by multiple investigators.

Documentation research and literature review  

• CAF Canada.ca websites
• CAF directives and presentations
• Canadian Military Justice website
• Chief of the Defence Staff Direction on Grievances
• Compensation and Benefits Instructions
• Defence Administrative Orders and Directives
• Director Compensation and Benefits Administration 2021 report
• Documents shared by Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture
• Emails, presentations, transcripts, data, and other formal/informal and internal written directives provided by DND/CAF authorities
• Military Grievance External Review Committee website
• National Defence Act
• National Joint Council website
• Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces
• Related grievances data breakdown from Chief Professional Conduct Culture
• Reports, guides, and policy manuals
• Standard Operating Procedures
• The Third Independent Reviews of the National Defence Act – Justice Fish Report

Ombudsman Office

• Complaint files from internal database
• Education and Research Products   
• Ombudsman letters
• Past studies and reports

Interviews and Consultations

Email consultations with DND/CAF senior authorities took place between November 2023 and March 2024.

Also, we invited DND/CAF senior authorities to participate in our interviews. Our interviews focused on key CAF leadership positions such as those with grievance authority at the Initial Authority and Final Authority levels for compensation and benefits grievances and those involved in the CAF Grievance Process Transformation. Everyone we contacted agreed to participate. We recognize that the experiences and opinions expressed may not necessarily represent the views of all CAF members and leadership. We conducted 6 interviews between October and November 2023, and we spoke with 10 individuals occupying CAF leadership roles including:

• Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS)
• Associate Assistant Deputy Minister Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture (Associate ADM CPCC)
• Acting Chief of Military Personnel (A/CMP)
• Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB)
• Director Compensation and Benefits – Grievances (DCB Griev)
• Director of Children Education Management
• The Designated Departmental Foreign Service Directives (FSD) Coordinator Director for the CAF
• FSD Analyst – Children’s Education Management

We also consulted the Senior Director of Union Engagement and NJC Support for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, in November 2023, February 2024 and May 2024, to better understand the National Joint Council Committees and sub-committees.

Note: Unlike other systemic investigations conducted by our office where call outs are made for constituent interviews, this investigation reviewed our office’s formal complaints and information received during constituent engagements from April 2019 to August 2023 to gather information on the issues and their impacts reported in this investigation.

Potential bias  

We recognize that biases may exist when investigating the effectiveness of the military grievance process. Some of those biases may include selection/sampling bias, cognitive bias, information bias, and interviewer bias. Our investigative team used mitigation strategies to ensure that the information presented is evidence-based. This includes:

• Employing a mixed-method approach systematically in the collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data;
• Acquiring quantitative data from various sources, using multiple investigators to collect and analyze qualitative data, and conduct interviews;
• Selection and sampling expanded to acquire information from various perspectives on the subject, which included various DND/CAF authorities, and leadership; and
• Employing multiple multi-level revisions and validation measures to test for evidentiary rigour in the collection, analysis, and reporting of information; and acquiring bias awareness training for the investigative team.

Gender Based Analysis Plus

We conducted this investigation based on a small sample of complaints our office received. We did not investigate policies being grieved and therefore we did not include any direct Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) questions in our interviews. However, we integrated a GBA Plus analysis in developing and analyzing our interview questions and report.

Appendix IV: CAF Grievance Process Transformation

On 28 November 2023, Chief Professional Conduct and Culture (CPCC) introduced the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Process Transformation, an initiative intended to improve the military grievance process by addressing notable flaws within the military grievance process, including those covered in this investigation.

Delays at the Initial Authority (IA) and Final Authority (FA) levels remains a significant issue affecting CAF members. Members may wait years before their grievance is resolved, often due to the lack of time limit and authority for compensation and benefits grievances at the FA level. In 2023, the average processing time for grievances files at the IA and FA level was:

• 1155 calendar days (if it included a Military Grievances External Review Committee (MGERC) referral), and
• 815 calendar days (if it did not include an MGERC referral).^{Footnote 140}

The CAF Grievance Process Transformation includes five Lines of Effort:

• Digitization
  • On 5 February 2024, CPCC launched the Digital Grievance Submission Form, an online tool to facilitate access to the grievance system and to streamline the military grievance process. The form is available on the internet, allowing CAF members to file grievances from their work and personal devices.^{Footnote 141} The form standardizes the information included in grievance submissions, standardizes the administration of grievances, promotes consistency and will ideally result in quicker resolution of grievances.^{Footnote 142} The grievor's information on the form will be shared and used by the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, IA, FA and MGERC (if applicable).^{Footnote 143}
  • As of April 2024, CPCC is developing a Grievance Portal, with an expected launch in July 2024.^{Footnote 144}
• Capacity:
  • CPCC is planning a sustained hiring surge across the summer of 2024 to increase the volume of grievances they can effectively manage.^{Footnote 145}
• Process:
  • Effective on 24 November 2023, the Chief of Defence Staff delegated the Chief of Staff (COS) CPCC as a FA for grievances to help address the backlog. This also included standing up two committees and presenting file synopses to committee members (approximately 80 per week) for rapid adjudication. ^{Footnote 146}
  • CPCC developed a new model with a revised IA timeline, a new FA timeline, and changes to delegations with the goal of reducing processing times. They aim to reduce the average wait time from 855 days to 210 days.^{Footnote 147}
  • CPCC intends to promote the use of alternate and informal resolution options outside the military grievance process, which will require amplifying chain of command engagement.^{Footnote 148}
• Communications and Change management:
  • To inform all stakeholders of the Grievance Process Transformation activities, CPCC intends to implement a broad, comprehensive and persistent communication strategy using multiple platforms (Internet, Intranet, social media).^{Footnote 149}
• Accountability:
  • Effective February 2024, all key stakeholders are invited to a monthly External Council event. This includes representatives from Chief of Military Personnel (Director General Compensation and Benefits, DGMC [Director General Military Careers], Health Group), ADM(HR-Civ) (Assistant Deputy Minister [Human Resources – Civilian]), All L1 HR (Level Ones Human Resources) Staff, and CDSO (Cadet Division Staff Officer).^{Footnote 150}

According to CPCC, the Grievance Centre of Expertise (GCoE) will launch in fall 2024. As the foundation of the proposed new grievance system, the GCoE aims to centralize, facilitate, and improve the military grievance process by:

• Registering and assigning grievances accordingly (Intake and Triage section);
• Providing guidance to grievors, Commanding Officers, and chains of command (Support and Advice Cell); and
• Supporting the system through the implementation of courses, briefings and liaisons with Complaint and Conflict Management Services and L1s (Training and Outreach section).

Our office will closely monitor the implementation and outcomes of these initiatives.