# 2010-012 - Home Equity Assistance, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP),...

Home Equity Assistance, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Right to Grieve – Regulations Made by the Governor in Council

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2010–09–02

The grievor was posted to a new place of duty after two years in his originating location. Upon receiving notice of his posting, he sold his home at a loss of over $45,000, which was equivalent to 13 percent of the purchase price of the home. The grievor received Home Equity Assistance (HEA) in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to section 8.2.13 of the Canadian Forces (CF) Integrated Relocation Program (IRP). The grievor submitted a request to the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) that Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) designate his community as a depressed market area, which would have entitled him to reimbursement for 100 percent of his loss.

The DCBA denied the grievor's request indicating that there were no locations in Canada designated with depressed market status by TBS.

The grievor submitted a grievance arguing that the fact that he had been able to mitigate his loss, avoiding a 20 percent equity loss, should not exclude him from HEA protection. As redress, he requested that he be granted HEA in reimbursement for 100 percent of his loss from his core funding envelope.

The Acting Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the initial authority (IA), denied the grievance. The IA highlighted that, in accordance with CF IRP section 8.2.13, a depressed market was defined as a community where the housing market had dropped more than 20 percent. The IA noted that the CF IRP was subject to TB approval and that he could not exercise discretion in the grievor's matter given that the grievor's circumstances were specifically provided for in the policy. The IA also made reference to the HEA provisions in article 209.97 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI).

In submitting his grievance for final authority consideration, the grievor argued that the loss he had suffered in complying with a CF request that he accept a posting was unacceptable regardless of the relevant policies.

The Board noted that, in accordance with CBI paragraphs 209.80(1) and 209.971(1), the CF IRP was the relocation policy applicable to the grievor, and accordingly, the HEA provisions under CBI 209.97 referenced by the IA were not applicable. The Board found that the grievor had not submitted the information required to prove that the housing market in his community dropped more than 20%; rather, the evidence indicated that there had only been a 10 to 15 percent decrease. Consequently, the Board found that the DCBA was not required to submit the matter to TBS, and there would not have been sufficient grounds for TBS to grant depressed market status pursuant to section 8.2.13 of the CF IRP. The Board found that the DCBA had correctly and fairly applied the HEA policy in the grievor’s case.

In response to the grievor's contention that his loss was unacceptable regardless of the relevant policies, the Board noted that, according to article 1.01 of the CF IRP, relocation practices were meant to be fair, reasonable and modern. The Board also referred to the National Joint Council Relocation Directive, from which the CF IRP is derived via TB, which indicated that the purpose of the IRP was to relocate an employee in an efficient fashion, at a reasonable cost to the public while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and on departmental operations. The Board found that HEA under the CF IRP did not reasonably address the modern realities of CF members and did not achieve the aim of relocating members with a minimum detrimental effect given the potential for members to bear losses in the neighourhood of $30,000 or greater upon postings. The Board noted that additional discretion permitted in the administration of the HEA would be one way to effectively address this issue.

The Board recommended that the grievance be denied. The Board also recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff direct that the HEA policy applicable to CF members selling their homes upon postings be re-examined, taking into account modern market conditions, with a view to reducing the potential impact of losses to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–03–02

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS also agreed with the Board's systemic recommendation and he directed the DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. One issue for review is the definition of "community": using a large metropolitain area as a basis for defining a community would average out large discrepancies amongst the communities that make up the larger area. The CDS strongly support the grievor's case as a valid compensation as a claim against the Crown for the loss of equity not reimbursed under the CF IRP, and he forwarded the file to the DCCL.

Page details

Date modified: