# 2024-329 Pay and Benefits, Component Transfer, Director Claims and Civil Litigation, Negligent Misrepresentation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-05-08

The grievor received and accepted a Component Transfer (CT) offer to the Regular Force under the Regular Officer Training Plan, which specified payment at the Private Pay Incentive 1 (Pte PI 1) rate while serving as an Officer Cadet (OCdt). He was later informed that he was not entitled to this pay rate because he had not reached the required Occupational Functional Point. The grievor submitted a grievance maintaining that the letter of offer is a valid and binding contract that should be upheld, arguing that multiple changes to the relevant Compensation and Benefits Instructions caused confusion and constitute a disputed policy, and that he should not be held responsible for an error he did not make. He further stated that he was unfairly held accountable and questions the clarity of the policy, asserting that proper interpretation would have prevented the issue. As redress, he sought full reimbursement of recovered funds, compensation for lost income due to reduced pay, reinstatement of the Pte PI 1 pay rate outlined in the offer, and interest at the prime rate.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), determined that the grievor was treated in accordance with applicable regulations and denied the request for redress. The IA found the relevant policies to be clear and not subject to flexible interpretation, emphasized the obligation to recover any overpayment, and noted a lack of authority to waive such recovery. It was also determined that the criteria for interest payments were not met, and although the financial impact on the grievor was recognized, no compensation beyond established policy entitlements could be granted.

The Committee agreed that the grievor was incorrectly offered and paid at the Pte PI 1 rate upon CT, despite being entitled only to OCdt pay, resulting in an overpayment that was later recovered. The Committee acknowledged that, while the administrative error created a reasonable expectation based on the offer, the resulting overpayment constituted a valid debt that has since been fully repaid, leaving no basis for remission. With respect to negligent misrepresentation, the Committee found that, although certain elements were present, the full legal test was not met.

As the Canadian Armed Forces had already recovered the debt, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) acknowledge to the grievor that his CT was not handled appropriately and that he was not adequately supported by the chain of command. The Committee further recommended that, should the grievor present additional evidence in support of detrimental reliance, the FA refer the file to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for consideration.