# 2016-051 Pay and Benefits, Dependants, Foreign Service Directives (FSD), Military Foreign Service Instruction (MFSI)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–08–16

The grievor was transferred to Europe with his spouse and children. Except for the youngest, the children were enrolled in a private school. However, since the youngest child had to enrol in school the year after the grievor's transfer, Interdepartmental Working Group B refused the grievor's request to enrol the child at the same school as the other siblings.

The grievor indicated that the refusal to authorize enrolment of his youngest child in the same school as the child's siblings ran counter to the National Joint Council's Foreign Service Directive (FSD) 34 – Education Allowances. He also argued that there was no school near where he lived that was compatible with Canadian schools.

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.

The Committee concluded that the grievor had not demonstrated that the curriculums in the schools where Working Group B had authorized him to enrol his youngest child were incompatible with the curriculum in Canadian schools.

That said, the Committee 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 that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS was of the view that a number of factors beyond the grievor's control resulted in having to enlist his youngest child in the same school has his siblings. The CDS found that the grievor was treated differently than Public Service employees posted to the High Commission in question, which only retained schools offering an education assessed at a given level of quality. Although this was not entirely in line with the practices of Working Group B, the latter nonetheless approved concurring requests while it had refused the grievor's request. According to the CDS, 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 on the basis that it had recently been taken over by a foundation which enjoyed a more favourable reputation, as important changes clearly could not be immediately implemented. 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. He also ordered CMP to clarify the rules for selecting educational institutions in light of his decision as to ensure equitable treatment between Public Service employees and members of the CAF.

Lastly, the CDS found that the request with regard to transportation of his dependants meets the spirit of FSD 30.8.5, thus order CPM to reimburse the grievor for the taxi transportation costs he incurred.