# 2022-300 Pay and Benefits, Overpayment, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-25

The grievor challenged the decision of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to recover overpayments of the Post Living Differential (PLD) paid to him during his posting at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu between 2017 and 2019. He stated that he had been misinformed by the Saint-Jean orderly room, which had previously confirmed that he was eligible to keep the PLD for the Post Living Differential Area (PLDA) of the South Shore of Montréal, even though he was not moving to his new place of duty. He also noted the CAF's administrative error in maintaining his PLD payments throughout his posting. Lastly, the grievor expressed his confusion at the findings of the consolidated audit review for the PLD for the Montreal and Saint-Jean areas, published on 25 January 2022 by the Director Pay Policy Development, not to grant debt remission to the 72 members affected by Operation (Op) ZONAGE because of the low error rate (3%).  

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), explained that, in 2017, the grievor's place of duty changed from Montreal to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Since he chose to keep his principal residence in the PLDA of the South Shore of Montreal, section 205.45(8) of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions should have applied. As a result, the grievor was entitled to the lower of the PLD rate for his residence or the PLD rate for his place of duty (that is, $0 for the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu PLDA). The IA added that, although the grievor was the victim of an administrative error, it was his responsibility to repay the debt, as set out in article 203.04 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

In this case, the Committee began by providing comments on the recurrence of cases involving administrative errors in members' financial benefits. It stated that the CAF would benefit from reviewing training programs for financial experts and holding them accountable for any mistakes they make. The Committee then criticized the inaccurate findings of the audit review carried out in the context of Op ZONAGE, pointing out that the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board Guide to Debt Deletion require an individual assessment of each case when it comes to debt remission.  

The Committee concluded that the grievor was aggrieved by the CAF's decision to continue making PLD payments to him during his posting even though he was no longer entitled to them. It recommended that the Final Authority assess the impact of recovery on the grievor individually and, to the extent that this procedure would result in significant financial hardship, prepare a submission to the Governor in Council for remission of the debt.