# 2015-214 - Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Post Living Differential (PLD)

Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Post Living Differential (PLD)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–11–26

The grievor transferred from the Regular Force to the Reserve Force in order to accept a Class B term of service at another location. Upon transfer, he purchased a residence at his new place of duty, but in the same time frame, he also elected to take an Intended Place of Residence (IPR) move to another location, based on erroneous information provided by CAF personnel. He moved part of his furniture to each location. Because he had been authorized a move at Crown expense to his place of duty residence, he was also entitled to, and began collecting, Post Living Differential (PLD). Six years later, it was discovered that because the grievor had taken an IPR move, he was not entitled to PLD and recovery action was initiated to have him repay more than $90,000.

The grievor maintained that eligibility for PLD was a critical part of his decision to accept the Class B position. He claimed that he would never have elected his IPR move had he known that it would affect his PLD entitlement; or, that he could have delayed it until after completion of his Class B service. As redress, the grievor requested that his IPR move be revoked in order to retain entitlement to PLD. As such, the grievor sought to repay his IPR move expenses and waive any future claims for IPR in lieu of repaying the substantial PLD recovery.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor's entitlement to PLD was outlined in Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 205.45(5). However, the IA determined that once the grievor elected his IPR, his entitlement to PLD ceased, in accordance with Addendum 8 (Early Move to Intended Place of Residence on Release (IPR)) to the 2006 Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) Directive. Although the IA found it regrettable that the grievor incurred such a significant overpayment, he determined that there was no administrative mechanism to revoke an IPR, or to reinstate it, and he was unable to grant the requested redress.

The Committee found that the grievor's situation originally met the conditions set out in CBI 205.45(5) necessary for entitlement to PLD in that, the grievor's place of duty was within a PLD area and his principal residence was located within that PLD area. Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor was entitled to PLD at the time of his posting for Class B employment.

Further, the Committee found that in accordance with CBI 205.45(9), election of an IPR could effectively bar entitlement to PLD if: 1) the IPR was an “early” IPR; and, 2) the “early” move to an IPR was granted prior to the member's release. However, the Committee found that the grievor's entitlement to PLD was not barred by CBI 205.45(9) as his situation was an IPR on release (2006 CF IRP Addendum 3) and not an early move to IPR prior to release (2006 CF IRP Addendum 8).

The Committee therefore recommended that the grievor be granted PLD from the date of his purchase of his residence at the duty location until the date of its sale.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–05–03

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor be granted PLD for the period from November 2006 to the date he sold his principal residence in Toronto.

Page details

Date modified: