# 2021-081 Pay and Benefits, Imposed Restriction, Post Living Differential, Recovery of Overpayment, Separation Expense

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-12-16

The grievor contested the recovery of an overpayment of Post Living Differential (PLD) and Separation Expense (SE) benefits. Having enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) on a subsidy at a civilian university, the grievor contended that he had limited exposure to the CAF prior to his first posting and was unaware that by relocating a small portion of his household goods and effects (HG&E) at public expense to his new place of duty, he would become ineligible for those benefits. He argued that it is unreasonable to expect new CAF members to navigate the relocation process by themselves on their first posting without sufficient advice and guidance. The grievor sought dismissal of the recovery of the overpayment.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, noting that the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces do not provide for the separation of HG&E in more than one location in the grievor's circumstances. The IA found that upon relocating a portion of his HG&E at public expense, he had established a new principal residence for the purposes of PLD and SE benefits and was no longer entitled to receive those benefits. The IA found that the CAF shared ownership of the errors that had occurred in the administration of the grievor's benefits, but that it did not provide justification for the grievor to retain public funds that he was not entitled to receive.

The Committee found that the grievor was no longer entitled to PLD and SE benefits when he relocated a portion of his HG&E at public expense to his new place of duty, and that the recovery of this overpayment was reasonable. However, the Committee explained that while the CAF places a duty on its members to be acquainted with their pay and benefit entitlements, such knowledge accrues over time, and that a new recruit cannot be expected to be more familiar with their benefit entitlements than the subject matter experts who administered them. Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor shared no responsibility for the overpayment and that the CAF had failed in their duty of care to the grievor by failing to properly support and advise him on his first posting.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) afford the grievor some form of redress to mitigate the negative outcomes associated with the maladministration of his separation and relocation benefits - a remedy that would help make the grievor's unfortunate situation whole.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings. Noting that he had no authority to offer financial redress, he granted the grievor 15 days of special leave in an effort to mitigate the hardship the situation had caused.

The CDS commented that there had been a significant increase in cases where new CAF members relied on the subject matter experts to their detriment, particularly in the areas of PLD on enrolment, SE, IR, and partial moves of HG&E. He directed Chief Military Personnel to develop mandatory training for pay and benefits advisors as well as detailed briefings for new CAF members.