# 2022-077 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential, Recovery of Overpayment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-11-30

The grievor challenged the Canadian Armed Forces' decision regarding the reimbursement of Post Living Differential (PLD) payments he had received but not been entitled to. He stated that he had fulfilled his duty, as required by article 203.04 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O), by checking with his unit's administrative staff that his principal residence was in the Post Living Differential Area (PLDA) of Montreal's North Shore and that he was entitled to the PLD. The grievor also submitted that it was up to the Military Pay Administration Officer and base administrative staff to prevent or reduce overpayments. As redress, the grievor requested that Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces 204.45 be clarified and that he be reimbursed for the amount deducted from his pay to refund the PLD debt.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that, even though the grievor had decided to establish his principal residence within the geographic boundaries of the duty location of Montreal, the residence was not in the Post Living Differential Area (PLDA) of Montreal's North Shore. The IA stated that, consequently, the grievor had received an allowance to which he had not been entitled and the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had made an error was not a valid reason for him to keep the overpayment.

The Committee found that the grievor had received a PLD payment to which he had not been entitled and noted that, under article 201.05 of the QR&O, an accounting officer of the CAF is required to seek recovery of any overpayment, failing which the accounting officer is personally responsible for reimbursing the payment. However, the Committee also found that there may be exceptions to the duty to make a recovery and that the grievor's situation met the conditions for recovery of the overpayment to be deemed unreasonable, unjust or contrary to the public interest. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) order the appropriate authorities to prepare a submission to Treasury Board seeking a remission order to have the overpayment removed. In the alternative, the Committee recommended that the FA support a claim from the grievor based on negligent misrepresentation and refer it to the Director, Claims and Civil Litigation, for consideration as a claim against the Crown. Finally, the Committee recommended that the FA contemplate exercising its authority by order to authorize an ex gratia payment should the other two proposed remedies not be granted.