# 2021-271 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-08-08

The grievor contested the recovery of an overpayment of the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance. He argued that he exercised due diligence in asking about his entitlement when he requested permission to live in Montreal, outside of the geographical boundaries of his place of duty of St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and when he again questioned his entitlement to PLD allowance during additional file verifications where he was assured that he was entitled to PLD allowance. He further argued that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were negligent in repeatedly authorizing payment of the PLD allowance for an extended period in error, and in allowing him to continue to receive the PLD allowance for several months after discovering the error.

The Initial Authority (IA) partially granted the grievance by directing that Director Pay Policy and Development examine the issue of ineligible PLD payments. The IA explained that when a member's principal residence is located in one PLD Area (PLDA) and their place of duty is located in another, such as in the grievor's case, the PLD entitlement is based on the PLDA with the lower PLD rate. The IA determined that the PLD rate for the grievor's place of duty was nil and that he was not entitled to receive payments based on the location of his principal residence. The IA further found that while the grievor was not at fault for the error in the administration of his PLD allowance, he remains financially obligated to return all monies paid in excess of his entitlement, and denied reversal of the recovery.

The Committee found that the grievor was erroneously overpaid PLD allowance despite his diligence in confirming his eligibility. The Committee also found that the grievor was aggrieved both by the actions of the CAF in paying him an allowance he was not entitled to and their decision to recover the overpayment, and that remedies outside of the military grievance process merit consideration.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) afford the grievor redress by directing CAF authorities to prepare a submission to Treasury Board seeking a remission order for deletion of overpayment. In the alternative, the Committee recommended that the FA support the grievor's claim and refer it to Director Claims and Civil Litigation for consideration. Should neither of these options be feasible, the Committee recommended that an ex gratia payment to the grievor be considered.