# 2024-153 Pay and Benefits, Compensation for Disability - Reserve Force, Medical Employment Limitation, Medical Treatment, Reserve Force

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-02-13

The grievor sustained a service-related injury and received Reserve Force Compensation (RFC) under Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 210.72. Years later, while the grievor was still awaiting surgery, an updated medical assessment indicated that the grievor's Medical Employment Limitations (MELs) improved and he was medically fit to return to modified military duties, seek civilian employment, or resume full-time studies while awaiting surgery. As a result, RFC was ceased except for a brief post-surgical recovery period. The grievor contended that the medical assessment disregarded the opinion of the civilian surgeon, who recommended prolonged rest and no return to work. As redress, the grievor requested RFC for lost income during that timeframe.

The Director General of Compensation and Benefits, acting as Initial Authority (IA) found that RFC was administered in accordance with CBI 210.72 and denied redress. The IA also obtained a review of the grievor's medical file from Directorate Medical Policy, advising that the grievor was employable with appropriate MELs in a military context and civilian practitioners may be unfamiliar with the flexibility of military modified duties. 

The Committee's role is not to replace medical experts but to ensure that the MELs were assigned according to policy and aligned with the medical evidence. In Bouchard v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 1231, the Federal Court recognized the unique expertise of military physicians in assessing how medical conditions affect a member's deployability and compliance with the Universality of Service principle. MELs must reflect a personalized assessment of the member's condition, not just a general diagnosis.  

Accordingly, the Committee reviewed the grievor's medical assessments and file and found that the grievor's MELs were based fairly on an individualized assessment of the grievor's injury and condition. The Committee subsequently found that RFC eligibility was correctly ceased in accordance with the eligibility criteria under CBI 210.72.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.