# 2016-198 - Post Living Differential (PLD), Recovery of Overpayment/Debt Write-Off

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–02–07

The grievor claimed that he was entitled to post living differential (PLD) benefits for the initial period when he was granted a compassionate stay in single quarters (SQ), after separating from his spouse, and preferably for the entire duration of his stay in SQ. The grievor advanced his argument based on the fact that, during this period, he retained a principal residence within the PLD area where his dependants lived and for which he remained financially responsible.

The initial authority (IA) found that the PLD policy found in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 205.45 defines a principal residence as “a dwelling in Canada, other than a summer cottage, other seasonal accommodation or a single quarter that is occupied by the member or their dependents”. As such, the IA determined that the grievor was not entitled to receive the PLD benefit for the duration of the time when he was living in SQ.

The Committee found that the definition set out in CBI 205.45 stipulated that a SQ cannot be a “principal residence.” As such, the Committee sought to determine whether the grievor's family residence could fall within the definition of “principal residence.” In other words, was the grievor's house a dwelling still occupied by his dependants? Given that the grievor's spouse was no longer “normally resident with” him after he moved out of the home and he did not have a “dependent child” as defined in CBI 205.015, the Committee concluded that the grievor had no dependants for the purposes of PLD as of the date he moved into SQ. As the grievor did not occupy his house after the separation date and had no dependants, the Committee found that he did not have a “principal residence” as defined in CBI 205.45 and was not eligible for PLD. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

There is no Final Authority decision as the grievor withdrew the grievance.