# 2013-050 Pay and Benefits, Overpayment, Remission, Transitional Post Living Differential (TPLD)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–08–27

In September 2011, a pay clerk informed the grievor that he was entitled to the transitional post living differential (TPLD) allowance; this information was corroborated by members working with the grievor who were in receipt of the allowance. Consequently, the grievor began receiving the TPLD allowance backdated to the posting date in August 2011. In August 2012, the Area Support Unit Commanding Officer (CO) issued an e-mail directing recovery from 110 personnel, including the grievor, who were never entitled but had been erroneously receiving the allowance. The grievor argued that the policies governing the post living differential (PLD) allowance and the TPLD allowance were not clear and the staff of the base orderly room appeared to be confused concerning the appropriate approval authority. The grievor submitted that, having relied on information provided by experts, members should not be financially responsible for this mistake, and therefore sought write-off of the debt.

The Initial Authority (IA) decision emphasized that TPLD had been established at locations to assist those members subject to decreases in PLD rates as a result of a new methodology introduced effective 1 July 2007. Given the grievor's rank, the grievor would need to have been posted to the applicable PLD area prior to 1 April 2009 in order to be eligible for TPLD, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 205.452. Since the grievor was not posted until 2011, there was no entitlement to TPLD. The IA noted that in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, a debt should be collected unless it was considered unreasonable or unjust or that it was considered in the public interest to remit it. The IA concluded that remission was not justified in the grievor's case given the recovery plan was neither “unreasonable nor unjust” and denied the grievance.

The issue for the Committee was whether the decision to recover the TPLD allowance from the grievor was justified and in accordance with applicable policy.

The Committee was in agreement with the IA decision that the grievor was plainly not eligible for TPLD in accordance with CBI 205.452. However, the Committee was of the opinion that the grievor was entitled to rely on the expertise of pay office personnel and, in the circumstances, have recourse to the remedial provisions of remission set out in subsection 23(2.1) of the Financial Administration Act. It was the Committee's view that the grievor's debt could be remitted as it was unreasonable and unjust to collect the overpayment. Thus, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS) direct the preparation of a submission to be forwarded to Treasury Board recommending the remission of the grievor's debt. The Committee referenced a systemic recommendation made in another similar grievance, recommending the CDS seek the remission of the debt of all affected members.

The Committee was also concerned with the fairness of the TPLD policy itself, given that it was introduced as a transitional policy but continues to exist. This has resulted in an unfair situation which needs to be resolved as Canadian Forces members, posted prior to a certain date, continue to receive an allowance while colleagues working with them, but posted later, are not entitled.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–10

While the CDS appeared concerned with the number of overpayment related grievances received since he became the CDS, he disagreed with the Committee that a remission order in this case was warranted. In his view, remission orders may be an option for consideration, but are not practical nor feasible for most overpayment made to CAF members as it requires the Minister's involvement and the approval of the Governor in Council. He did however direct the Chief Military Personnel to review the system used to administer the payments of benefits to CAF members, with a view of minimizing the number of errors. The CDS also found that the grievor had no choice but to refund the TPLD received in error. Finally, with respect to the Committee's concerns with the fairness of the TPLD policy itself, the CDS assured the Committee that the outstanding issues were being addressed.