# 2021-034 Pay and Benefits, Post-living differential, Household goods and effects

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-12-16

The grievor challenged the denial of his request for Post-living differential (PLD) for the three-year period in which he stored his household goods and effects (HG&E) during his basic qualification training. As redress, he requested PLD for that period.

There was no Initial Authority decision.

The Committee applied Compensation and Benefit Instruction (CBI) 205.45 - Post Living Differential, to the grievor's circumstances. It noted that the purpose of the PLD benefit is to reduce the adverse financial benefit on military members and their families when posted to a PLD area (PLDA) with a cost of living above the national average. To be eligible for PLD, a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member is required to occupy a principal residence in a PLDA.  

In the grievor's case, he rented a basement apartment in a house owned by his mother, immediately before his enrollment in the CAF. During his basic qualification training, the grievor continued to store his HG&E in the apartment, but did not pay his mother any money to store them.  

As neither the grievor nor his dependants occupied the basement apartment during his training and he did not jointly occupy the apartment with another CAF member who was entitled to PLD, the Committee found that the apartment did not constitute a “principal residence” as defined in the CBI. Moreover, as the grievor did not pay any fees to store his HG&E in the apartment during the period in question, he did not incur the costs that the PLD benefit was designed to offset. Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's circumstances did not meet the object and purpose of PLD set out in applicable policy.  

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.