# 2013-043 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential (PLD), Recovery of Overpayment/Debt Write-Off
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–07–18
The grievor sought reinstatement of his Post Living Differential (PLD) benefit, and a return of all monies recovered from him, after a review of his circumstances had determined that he actually resided outside the Geographical Boundary (hereinafter the “Boundary”) of his place of duty.
The Canadian Forces (CF) position was that the grievor had resided outside of the Boundary since the day that his PLD commenced. Specifically, because his property did not touch the Boundary line which was a road, it was not considered to be within the Boundary.
The Committee first examined the location of the grievor's house and the Boundary description as it existed when the grievor was initially authorized the PLD, and determined that the grievor's house was approximately 15 kilometers (km) outside the Boundary. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to the PLD at that time.
The Committee then considered whether the grievor became entitled to the PLD as a result of subsequent changes to the Boundary. The Committee observed that the Boundary description indicated that it proceeded from one community to another without any indication as to whether the community was included within the Boundary in whole or in part. In the area of the grievor's residence, the Highway formed the Boundary and included both sides of the road at certain points which were not well defined. The Committee observed that the Boundary description failed to describe what and how much on the outside portion of the Highway was considered to be included inside the Boundary in those areas where both sides were included.
The Committee considered that there was a fundamental lack of logic in the manner in which the CF authorities defined the Boundary and found that the current manner of administering the Boundary in the area where it bisects the grievor's Township was highly subjective and unfair.
Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's residence should be considered to be within the Boundary as it was described in the amended version issued in May 2002, and that the grievor has been entitled to receive the PLD benefit since 2002 and continues to be so entitled.
The Committee noted that the CF is statute barred from recovering the PLD benefits paid in 2001–2002 since that is beyond the six-year time limit.
The Committee recommended that the grievance be upheld and that the recovery of the grievor's benefits be repealed and any monies recovered to date be returned to the grievor.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2014–11–20
The CDS disagreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be upheld.
Page details
- Date modified: