You don’t improve morale by increasing pay …

12 August 2025

 

Last Friday, the federal government announced increases to pay and allowances for officers and non-commissioned members (NCM) of the Canadian Forces (CF):

Murray Brewster, “Liberals spending $2B to boost military pay and benefits this year” (8 August 2025), online: CBC News <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-pay-carney-1.7604407>

 

Since then, everybody and their cocker spaniel has been commenting on the impact of this announcement on recruiting and retention.

I have some insights.  And you may want to take a knee or have a seat lest my comments come as a shock.

Under Herzberg’s “two-factor theory” of workplace satisfaction and employee motivation, pay and allowances are typically included in the group of “potential dissatisfiers”, or “hygiene factors” rather than “satisfiers” or “motivators”.  And, notwithstanding that officers and NCM of the CF are not in privity of contract with the Crown[1], when we are talking about the impact of increases to pay and allowances for CF personnel, we are discussing employment doctrine and methodologies.

And what that means is that employers, businesses, or institutions do not increase job satisfaction (and, therefore, conceivably, morale, motivation, and loyalty) by increasing pay and allowances.  Instead, an increase in pay and allowances can potentially reduce dissatisfaction.  But those increases function on a decelerating curve – meaning that, gradually, the marginal decrease in dissatisfaction begins to lessen compared to the marginal increase in pay and allowances.  There comes a point – sometimes rather rapidly – when the marginal increase in expenditure does not lead to a comparable decrease in dissatisfaction.

Ultimately, increasing pay and allowances only goes so far in reducing dissatisfaction, and, therefore, improving morale and retention.

And, contrary to what some people might proclaim, even before the recently announced increase in remuneration, officers and NCM of the CF were quite well paid compared to civilian employees in both the private and public sector.  And while it can be challenging to identify analogous “civilian employment”, some military occupations clearly have comparable civilian counterparts, and even those military occupations that are viewed as being ‘uniquely military’ in nature can be compared in terms of similar recruiting and retention demographics.

And, in addition to direct pay and allowances, one ought not discount significant benefits such as medical and dental care (which is generally free for CF members, and their families benefit from comprehensive medical and dental plans), and a very comfortable defined-benefit annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Benefits arising from deployments and overseas postings are also quite lucrative.  And, while some of those benefits arise from hazardous duty or hardship, one need only review the spectrum of benefits under the Compensation and Benefits Instructions, created under s 35 of the National Defence Act (NDA), and one quickly discovers that CF personnel do not face financial hardship compared to civil society.

And we ought not discount the significant training and education that CF personnel can receive, which can subsequently be parlayed into civilian employment or enterprise.  By way of example, I am able to do what I currently do by virtue of many of these advantages.  I completed the latter half of my undergraduate degree as an officer cadet under the Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP).  I completed my LLB courtesy of the Military Legal Training Plan (MLTP) and my Masters of Laws (LLM) under sponsored post-graduate training.

Service in the CF can bring many opportunities and benefits.

I contend that the recently announced increase in remuneration will do little to improve recruiting and retention, particularly the latter.  There are certainly some people who will be drawn to the CF as a stable and lucrative employment in politically and economically uncertain times.  But that remunerative regime will do little to compensate for: endemic delays in training to Operational Functional Point (OFP), poor statutory decision-making, a toxic working environment, or bad leadership.

A boost in pay isn’t going to boost morale, and it is a fool’s errand to believe that it will.

 

… you increase morale with reasonable, fair, and transparent decision-making and leadership

Coincidentally, the same day that the federal government announced this pay increase, I was reminded of an object example of what does need to be addressed if CF leaders wish to improve morale: and that is improving the timeliness, transparency, fairness, and reasonableness of statutory decision-making under the NDA.

And, yes, this is a common refrain in this Blog.  So, if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to beat that drum once again, using the CF grievance process as a comparative counter-point to the recently announced increase in spending on pay and allowances.

Some of you may recall my discussion of my own personal journey through the CF grievance process.  I have what I believe is the oldest active grievance in the CF.  It is approximately 19 ½ years old.  I received a determination from the final authority (FA) – specifically a decision by (then) Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA)[2], Colonel Frank Malo – on my last day of service before I commenced retirement leave.  At that point, my grievance was a youthful 10 ½ years old.

DGCFGA’s decision did not survive contact with the Federal Court.  Within four months of the date that I filed a Notice of Application for judicial review, the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) had consented to an Order from the Federal Court, quashing the FA’s decision and remitting the grievance back to a ‘new’ FA.  That was over 8 years ago.

The last communication between myself and the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA) was just under 2 ½ years ago, when I submitted representations regarding a so-called Subject Matter Expert (SME) report.  There were issues arising from that report, not the least of which was that the so-called SME was the decision-maker whose decision was the subject of the grievance.  In other words, it appears that the FA was improperly sub-delegating the analysis for the grievance to the very decision-maker whose decision was impugned by the grievance.

That was an imprudent approach.

Plus, the SME report was designated “Annex A” of another document originating from within Director General Canadian Forces Health Services (DG CF H Svcs), and that “parent document” had not been disclosed to me.  There appeared to me to be various lacunae regarding disclosure of information in the possession of the CF and upon which various decision-makers were relying.

And I pointed out, 2 ½ years ago, that the integrity of my grievance file was in doubt and that I had not received a synopsis from the FA.  You see, my grievance had been lost, at least twice, when it was in the custody and control of the initial authority (IA), DG CF H Svcs.  And that same IA had failed to consider and determine my grievance over the course of more than 8 years.  By the time that I offered representations in March 2023, the grievance had been kicking around for 17 years.  It had been assigned at least three distinct grievance file numbers as the CF grievance process had evolved over those years.  It had been subject to judicial review and had been remitted back to the CFGA.  And I noticed that the file that was conveyed to me as the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR) for the judicial review was missing various documents that had purportedly been part of the grievance file (and some documents in the CTR were ‘new’ to me.).  Plus, presumably, additional correspondence and documents had been added to the grievance file after the Federal Court remitted it back to the CFGA.

In short – there was a compelling requirement for CFGA to confirm the contents of the grievance file and to disclose it to me in order to ensure that we were discussing the same file.

But it took them nearly 2 ½ years to send me a copy of the grievance file.

That seems unusually slow for a response, doesn’t it?

Plus, I am still waiting for a synopsis from the FA.  And the SME report should not be characterized as the FA’s synopsis.  After all, it is not an analysis by the FA or her staff; it is an analysis offered by the very decision-maker whose decision is impugned by the grievance.  I am also waiting for disclosure of the “parent document” to which the SME report was purportedly “Annex A”.

Consequently, notwithstanding the passage of time, the FA has still failed to provide me with all of the information relevant to my grievance and the synopsis that ought to have been prepared by the FA staff.

And the significance of the synopsis should not be underestimated.  In my representations back in March 2023, I expressly mentioned both the need to confirm the contents of my grievance file and the requirement for the FA to prepare a synopsis.  I wrote:

1. 2.  I reserve the right to make further representations. I am not confident that DCFGA has a complete and accurate version of my grievance file at reference A – or, more accurately, I am not confident that the record described at reference A, which the FA has maintained, reflects the contents of the file that I maintain.
   3. In any event, it is my understanding that the process employed by the FA and the FA grievance staff is that, prior to a determination by the FA, a synopsis is prepared by the FA grievance staff and presented to the grievor. That has not yet been done with this grievance following the successful judicial review of the first FA determination. The only material change to the grievance of which I am aware is the inclusion of the so-called SME report at reference B, which was provided to me approximately six months after the author completed it.

 

Like other grievors, I have a legitimate expectation that I will be presented with a synopsis before the FA considers and determines my grievance.  Para 10.5 of Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 2017-1, Military Grievance Process states:

10.5 Whether or not the FA refers a grievance to the Grievances Committee, the FA must, in accordance with QR&O article 7.19, Duties if Grievance Not Referred to Grievances Committee, or QR&O article 7.24, Action After Grievances Committee Review:

1. 1. consider the requirement to prepare a synopsis and disclose it and any new information to the grievor;
   2. consider all relevant documents and information, and any representations made by the grievor following the disclosure process;
   3. determine the grievance;
   4. provide reasons in the decision letter for not acting upon a finding or recommendation of the Grievances Committee;

Note – The findings and recommendations of the Grievances Committee do not constitute a decision, and the FA is not bound by them.

1. 1. advise in writing the grievor, the grievor’s CO, if any, and the IA, of the decision with reasons; and
   2. update the NGR. [Underlining added]

 

Interestingly, in March 2023, I had suggested that my grievance could be referred to the Military Grievances External Review Committee (MGERC) for Findings & Recommendations (F&R).  That was not done.  And I am confident that even the MGERC could have offered F&R in the 2 ½ years that have transpired since then.  While the MGERC can sometimes suffer from delays in delivery of F&R, I am not familiar with any matters for which they have taken over 2 years to furnish F&R.  Unfortunately, that opportunity has now been squandered.  In light of the absence of any review by the MGERC, there is a compelling argument for the FA to generate a synopsis in this grievance.

In fact, I recently represented a CF member who successfully obtained an Order from the Federal Court quashing an unfair grievance determination when the FA failed to provide a synopsis.  The grievor had expressly indicated to the FA, prior to the determination of the grievance, that the grievor had not received a synopsis and that the FA was obliged to provide a synopsis.

The grievor brought an Application for judicial review citing multiple defects in the adjudication of his grievance.  He argued that the determination was both unfair and unreasonable.  The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) consented to a motion asking the court to quash the determination and remit the grievance back to the FA.  The grounds for the motion to which the AGC agreed expressly cited the failure of the FA to provide the grievor with a synopsis as the basis to conclude that the grievance determination was procedurally unfair.  By Order dated 20 February 2025, Madam Justice Go quashed that grievance determination on those grounds.  Granted, the grievor argued that the FA’s decision was deficient for other reasons, but the single ground to which the AGC was willing to consent was sufficient to justify the court’s decision and Order.

It appears that this recent lesson has not taken hold at CFGA. And I find it disheartening that it has taken nearly 2 ½ years to arrive at a juncture where I am having to explain how the FA has again failed to exercise her duties, powers, and functions properly.

And don’t get me started on the closed-minded intransigence arising within my grievance.  When I received the SME report, it conveyed the statement from the Director of Medical Policy (D Med Pol) that my medical category – the subject of the grievance – would not be changed.  Point final.

Let that sink in: D Med Pol is not the FA in the CF grievance process.  It is D Med Pol’s decision that is impugned by the grievance.  (Granted, not the current D Med Pol … unless that same officer has been in that position for the past two decades).  The FA is the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) or her delegate.  But D Med Pol purports to dictate that no one will change the decision.

Yet, whenever a CF member attempts to challenge a decision in the administration of the affairs of the CF without first exhausting the CF grievance process, the Attorney General of Canada will consistently argue that the CF member must first exhaust the CF grievance process as an “adequate alternat remedy”.

Some alternative.

Some remedy.

Granted, my grievance is likely among the very worst examples of the CF mishandling a grievance.  Not all grievances take two decades to resolve.  (And I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch – my grievance is not yet resolved.)  But it is not uncommon for the FA to take five years or more to consider and determine a grievance.  The recent Application for judicial review that I mention above concerned a grievance that took 6 ½ years to adjudicate.  And that simply isn’t reasonable.

As I have explained previously, the longer it takes to consider and determine a grievance, the more likely the FA will approach the grievance with a closed mind and intransigent approach.  For example, the above-mentioned Application for judicial review concerned a grievance challenging a decision by Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA) ordering the compulsory release of a CF member under item 5(f) of the Table to art 15.01 of the QR&O.  That is a not uncommon subject for grievances.

That grievance took 6 ½ years to adjudicate.  For six of those years, the grievance was with the FA and there were lengthy periods of time when the grievance staff did not communicate with the grievor.  The grievance was rife with problems, including repeated refusals to provide disclosure.  And, when the disclosure was eventually provided – after the MGERC had generated F&R based upon an incomplete grievance file – the disclosure contained significant problematic and unjustified redactions.  And the eventual decision by the FA – the CDS at the time, General Wayne Eyre – contained unreasonable speculation and conclusions that were not transparently and reasonably supported by the evidence before the FA.

The problem, however, is that when it takes nearly seven years to consider and determine a grievance relating to compulsory release, the FA will often not be able to offer any meaningful remedy.  So, the FA will be inclined to determine the grievance unfavourably, in order to avoid the awkward circumstance arising from a valid grievance that cannot be remedied.  And the CDS will be aware that the next step for the grievor would be judicial review.

At judicial review, the FA benefits from a deferential approach by the courts.  And many grievors lack the sophisticated understanding of principles of public and administrative law in order to set conditions to maximize the likelihood of successful judicial review.  Not all grievors can afford to retain counsel or are willing to pay for such services.

So, the impunity continues.

And when the CF, the CDS, and other decision-makers do not suffer any adverse consequences for egregious delay in the adjudication of grievance, or for unreasonable intransigence in their decision-making, there isn’t much incentive for them to improve their process.

And those CF grievors who contact the DND/CF Ombudsman learn a brutal truth: the Ombudsman typically isn’t going to help them regarding an individual complaint or grievance.

 

Morale is a function of leadership, and leadership is a function of fair and reasonable decision-making

I regularly represent CF personnel who are removed from positions, including command, because their CF supervisors declare that they “… have lost confidence in their subordinate’s ability …” to command, or otherwise perform the duties and functions assigned to them.

Unfortunately, I long ago lost confidence in the capacity and willingness of CF institutional decision-makers to consider and determine many grievances – particularly those where the grievor has been accused of serious misconduct (but where the grievor is never subject to charges under the Code of Service Discipline) – in a fair, reasonable, transparent, and timely manner.  My own grievance has consistently been met with closed-minded intransigence and a refusal to acknowledge incontrovertible truths.  It is far too late for anyone to determine that grievance in a timely manner.  However, it is not too late for someone, finally, to do the right thing.  Unfortunately, I have little confidence that they will.  And I am not the only grievor who has experienced this closed-minded approach.

When CF personnel are subject to unfair, unreasonable, or closed-minded decision-making, they lose confidence in their chain of command.  When they seek a remedy using one of the only mechanisms available to them – the CF grievance process – and are met with delays, a lack of transparency, and further closed-minded decision-making, what little confidence they may have in the chain of command begins to evaporate.

That that deleterious impact on morale is not limited solely to the subjects of those decisions or to individual grievors.  Their peers, subordinates, and supervisors also witness intransigence and impunity in decision-making.  They witness closed-minded rush-to-judgment and decisions driven by a focus on appearances, rather than tested evidence.  And they, too, lose confidence.

It’s wonderful that CF personnel will receive an increase to pay and benefits (though I’ll wait to see how that truly shakes out).  But if people are anticipating that this will improve morale, retention, or the governance of the CF, they may be in for a long wait.  Increasing pay and allowances does not improve statutory decision-making in the administration of the affairs of the CF.  It doesn’t improve or encourage accountability.  And it doesn’t improve leadership.

 

[1] Gallant v The Queen in Right of Canada (1978), 91 DLR (3d) 695 (FC TD).

[2] The position of DGCFGA is not Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DCFGA).