# 2025-137 Medical and Dental Care, Duty Status, Summary Investigation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-04-30

The grievor alleged a gap in policy, contending that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) fails to recognize that members can be ordered to attend or leave their place of work to support essential, emergency, or high priority operations under hazardous weather conditions, which is equivalent to those members being “on duty.” The grievor sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) that resulted in his release for medical reasons. He suggested that failure to recognize his duty status may have led to Veteran Affairs Canada's (VAC) denial of benefits. The grievor requested that the CAF provide in policy that members deemed essential or required under emergency be considered on duty when ordered to travel to and from their place of work in hazardous weather conditions to conduct military operations. 

The Chief Military Personnel, acting as the Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievance based on the tardiness of the submission and jurisdiction. The IA was not satisfied that it would be in the best interest of justice to consider the grievance and took no further action.

As a preliminary matter, the Committee noted that VAC's assessment of benefits and compensation for injuries or death sustained by CAF members is made independently of any determination by the CAF. Therefore, the CAF has no jurisdiction over VAC's decisions. The Committee's review focused solely on the actions taken by the CAF in relation to the grievor's MVA and its determination as to whether the grievor's injuries were attributable to military service. The Committee disagreed with the grievor's assertion that there is a policy gap requiring correction, as determinations regarding duty status and attributability to service must be made on a case-by-case basis. That said, the Committee determined that the evidence indicated that no investigations were conducted following the grievor's MVA, which represented a significant shortcoming in policy application. The Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by conducting a Summary Investigation or Board of Inquiry into the grievor's MVA, as required under the provisions of chapter 21 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.