SE and IR for a reconciled MSC

[dapaterson]

Apparently over the years we have seen a lot of things come out as approved pending TB approval which should not have been done.  Nothing is approved until TB has actually signed off on it.

Something that needs to be tattooed on to the arms & face of everyone ever posted to DGCB.  Remember the string of CANFORGENS from early 2011?  Had we initiaited the DGCB Tattoo Reinforcement Informational Program (D-TRIP) that whole ugly mess would have been avoided.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This actually makes sense.  CBI 208.997 has the definition of a spouse as "in relation to a member, does not include a spouse who is living separate and apart, within the meaning of the Divorce Act, from the member".  The Divorce Act defines a spouse as "either of two persons who are married to each other".

My interpretation of that (and of course, I could be wrong) is that even if a couple is legally separated, they are still married.  Not to mention, despite the fact of being separated (legally or not), the person on IR (or receiving SE) is still partly (or wholly) financially responsible for their primary residence.

I just wonder if the powers of authority would read it the same. 

Your interpretation may be off.  The phrase "within the meaning of the Divorce Act" possibly does not refer solely to the definition of a "spouse" but is more likely to be further defining the phrase "spouse who is living separate and apart".  In that case an individual who meets that criteria would not be considered a spouse under CBI 208.997.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-3.4/page-4.html#h-4

Calculation of period of separation

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a),

(a) spouses shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart for any period during which they lived apart and either of them had the intention to live separate and apart from the other; and

(b) a period during which spouses have lived separate and apart shall not be considered to have been interrupted or terminated

(i) by reason only that either spouse has become incapable of forming or having an intention to continue to live separate and apart or of continuing to live separate and apart of the spouse’s own volition, if it appears to the court that the separation would probably have continued if the spouse had not become so incapable, or

(ii) by reason only that the spouses have resumed cohabitation during a period of, or periods totalling, not more than ninety days with reconciliation as its primary purpose.

 

[CountDC]

I'd be interested in seeing the TB interpretation then.  Just out of curiosity.

As far as parents who don't have full custody of children and spouses moving while one of them is on IR, I knew about those and don't see an issue with no and/or loss of benefits.  A couple who is separated but still legally married, yes, there I see an issue.

At first glance but then you get into the situations and realize maybe not.

A couple with no dependants seperate with no intent to get back together - should they still get the SE?

Neither parent has child on full time basis as they settle on a shared custody so neither is recognized as single parent.  Both are posted into theatres - who takes care of the kid?  A single parent may get an allowance to hire someone while the parents in this case are on their own. They also do not get to have them in the system as a dependant as they are not with them on a full time basis or sole custody and thus do not get to claim them on a move.

Our other couple instead of shared custody does a sole custody arrangement where parent 1 has child 10 months of year, parent 2 has child for Jul and Aug.  Parent 2 gets posted across the country in Jul and as they currently have the child on a full time basis they get to claim them on the move.  6 months later parent 1 gets posted and gets to claim the child too as they now have the child on a full time basis.

Single parents also have to be careful when they have a child over 18.  Even though that child may be going to University full time plus working part time to pay for it if the parent gets sent into theatre they will not qualify for the child care allowance as they have an 18 year old living with them.  if that same child was 17 and a bum then they would qualify.  Know any single parents with a boarder?  Hope they have a written lease if they want the benefit.  Course message better say "must stay in quarters" and not just "quarters are available" if you live local.

On SE?  Do not have any of your immediate family members come and stay with you for a total of 30 days in a 365 day period - you no longer qualify for SE.    Have your spouse visit one weekend a month plus xmas holidays and you are done.  Better put them in a hotel instead.

Lots of other little things people wouldn't normally think of that I am sure will not be seen as fair by the members involved.  If you have a chance to attend one of the DCBA briefs I highly recommend it.  Quite an eye opener for a lot of people.

One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.

and  if you are one of those armchair lawyers that look at the book, say "well it doesn't say I can't" and get paid the claim.  Guess what - not happening anymore.  Let's see if I can get the quote - "if it isn't in there then it isn't" or something like that.  Basically if it isn't in the regulation then no you can't do it.

Still want to try for some of them?  Then staff them to DCBA who will be happy to tell you why your answer is no with all the pertinent refs.

In case anyone is wondering - the CDS and staff (or me) may not agree with the policies but do not have the authority to over rule them.  TB sets the policy, CDS gets to set the CF admin procedures.  CDS can have DBCA try to get a change made by TB but you can be sure that is a long and difficult process.  The policies do not just affect the CF but all Federal departments.  I know we were already turned down on one change because of this and DCBA has been working very hard on getting some old things approved.

 

[PMedMoe]

Your interpretation may be off.  The phrase "within the meaning of the Divorce Act" possibly does not refer solely to the definition of a "spouse" but is more likely to be further defining the phrase "spouse who is living separate and apart".  In that case an individual who meets that criteria would not be considered a spouse under CBI 208.997.

So the definition of "living separate and apart" is from the Divorce Act, not the definition of "spouse".  Not surprising......

CountDC, I am pretty well aware of the rest of the new rules having been inundated with several emails, including a PowerPoint right after Christmas holidays.  At any rate, I think in some cases, they're going to have grievances.

But, I have no dog in this fight.  :dunno:

 

[bridges]

One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.

I know this is a tangent - but we got the same dir, and at the same time, we were told that for civilian employees we MUST book business class for flights over a certain duration - we couldn't allow the employees to waive it, which most of them wanted to do.  As we periodically send both civ employees and DND mbrs into theatre, sometimes together, it makes for a strange return trip when, after six months working together in the field, one goes back business class (not their preference) and the other economy, on the same plane.

Anyway... yes, I echo the necessity of going to the briefings and paying attention to what's approved by TB and what isn't.  DND has a history of allowing things that later have to be ceased, if not clawed back.   

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No.

There are very specific travel instructions issued for public servants that do not necessarily mirror what we do with members of the CF.  When booking travel for mixed groups of civil servants and members of the CF, use extreme caution.

 

[CountDC]

"I think in some cases, they're going to have grievances."

I can see a fair number happening.  Gonna be a real interesting time for the next little while.  People will have to realize though just becuase the grievance board approves their grievance and the CDS agrees does not mean they win.  It will still have to go through another loop.

 

[dapaterson]

One I did like - no more upgrades to business class for those that do not normally qualify. All those LCol CO's that got used to it are not going to be happy about that.  The old "it's my budget and I get to spend it how I like" just isn't going to cut it anymore.

If that was happening, there should have been recovery action, disciplinary action and administrative action long ago.

If superiors permitted such things, their heads should be rolling as well.

 

[OldSolduer]

If that was happening, there should have been recovery action, disciplinary action and administrative action long ago.

If superiors permitted such things, their heads should be rolling as well.

We could say that about any number of situations, couldn't we?

 

[bridges]

As an aside to the aside, while we're awaiting the CANFORGEN on SE/IR for MSC:  I think it was around the time that Daniel Pearl was killed, when I found myself no longer wanting to refer to "heads rolling", about any issue.  On the day Pearl's death was announced there were a couple of unrelated headlines about punitive action, using that phrase, and the editors got an earful.  Not that they could have known ahead of time, but it just hasn't held any appeal for me since.   

And it's been a long time since I saw anyone flying business class, for DND work.  I'm sure it's done, but getting rarer all the time.