August 1, 1984
25.4.20
The grievor sought payment of education allowance in regard to a period when his wife was resident in the national capital area and his dependant attended a school in the national capital area.
The grievor's wife and son were removed from a post abroad to Ottawa in the summer of 1981 as a result of political instability at the post abroad. The grievor's wife and dependant established residence in Nepean in September 1981 and the de pendant commenced school at a high school which was not located within the jurisdiction of his school district. Consequently, the grievor incurred tuition fees in the amount of $1,876.00. The education allowance proposal in this amount was approved on November 18, 1981, but no payment was made and the allowance proposal was revoked on June 17, 1983.
The Administrative Committee considered the report of the Foreign Service Directives Committee. The Administrative Committee noted that Directive 34, Educational Allowances (1979) specifies that an educational allowance or related expenses on behalf of a dependant child who resides with an employee's spouse who has chosen to remain in Canada shall not be authorized without the approval of Treasury Board. Consequently, the department's contention was that the advice given to the grievor's wife was based on the understanding that she would be returning to the post abroad.
This contention was corroborated when the employee claimed for a non-residence school fee (which is only incurred where a student's parents has/have not established residence in the school district) and for board and lodging costs.
It was further noted that the costs which the grievor incurred were for tuition fees rather than non-residence school fees. It was noted that arrangements can be made to transfer a child from the jurisdiction of one school board to a jurisdiction of another school board, at no cost to the parent where the course of study in which the student in enrolled is not available in his school district. The Administrative Committee further noted that the External Affairs representative had agreed to pursue this matter with the appropriate school boards on the behalf of the grievor. It was further noted that the External Affairs representative had agreed to consider making a submission to Treasury Board on behalf of the grievor, if the school board is not prepared to reimburse tuition fees.
The Administrative Commit tee agreed that the grievor had been treated within the intent of the directive.
The grievance was denied.