# 2021-141 Others, Administrative review, Next of kin, Pension benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-02-09

After the death of a member's separated spouse, also a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member, the grievor disputed changes made to several of the deceased's administrative forms that were made in the months before the deceased's death, including designation of Next of kin (NOK), and the beneficiaries of the Supplementary Death Benefits (SDB) and Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) life insurance. The grievor argued that a third-party had an undue influence on the deceased.

The Chief of the Defence Staff was identified as the appropriate Initial Authority (IA) and delegated the grievance to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to act as IA. The IA was unable to respond in the required timeframe and the grievor opted to have the grievance forwarded to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that allegations of wrongdoing against the third-party, along with the administration of the SDB and SISIP life insurance plan, were outside of the affairs of the CAF. The Committee considered that the grievor's civilian legal action was the correct avenue to seek redress for those issues.

The Committee analyzed the definition and designation of NOK, finding that CAF members are able to denote anyone they consider closest to them as their NOK. The Committee found that in light of the evidence available, the NOK form was properly completed and verified and that the form therefore represented the wishes of the deceased. The Committee noted that the presence of a second will would have caused conflict in the naming the deceased's personal representative for decisions related to funeral arrangements and found that it was reasonable to have deferred to the named NOK as the focus of support.

Lastly, the Committee found that once the grievor obtained probate of the will months later, the grievor should have been included in the Board of Inquiry (BOI) as a member's representative. The Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved by this and recommended that the FA recognize this failure. As the grievor had obtained copies of the BOI report through other means and had been given opportunity to testify before the BOI, the Committee did not recommend further redress.