# 2023-145 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential, Recovery of Overpayment/Debt Write-Off

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-07-25

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 2019 and 2021. During this period, the grievor's primary residence was located on the North Shore of Montreal but was outside the limits of a Post Living Differential Area (PLDA). The grievor disagreed with the recovery action, holding the CAF fully responsible for having approved his PLD payments for the North Shore of Montreal area when he enrolled even though he was not entitled to them. He stated that as a new recruit, he had no other choice but to follow the advice of the CAF experts, who assured him that he was eligible for such a benefit. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as Initial Authority (IA), found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies and refused to grant the redress requested. In her decision, the IA explained that, to be entitled to the PLD, the member must be based in a PLDA. However, when the grievor enrolled in the CAF in 2019, his primary residence was on the North Shore of Montreal, outside the geographic boundaries of a PLDA. The IA noted that, although the grievor was the victim of an administrative error, it is nonetheless his responsibility to repay the debt, as set out in article 203.04 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

First, the Committee pointed out that files involving administrative errors in members' financial benefits were a recurring issue. The Committee reminded the CAF that, although overpayments resulting from administrative errors must be recovered, these situations can have harmful consequences for members and their families. Members are forced to submit grievances, which inevitably creates additional costs for the Crown and tends to reinforce the public's negative opinion of the CAF.  

The Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved because it was not realistic to expect a new recruit to have in-depth knowledge of the organization's regulations and of the recruit's responsibilities. It was rather reasonable to believe that in such a situation, a recruit would trust the professionals in charge of their hiring and administering their pay. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority consider the scope of the financial and personal repercussions of the recovery on the grievor and to prepare a submission to the Governor in Council for the remission of the debt.