# 2012-103 Pay and Benefits, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–10–12

The grievor, a Regular Force officer, was posted to Edmonton in 2007 where he purchased a house. Upon being posted away from Edmonton two years later, he incurred a significant financial loss on the sale of his house.

The grievor complained that the denial of his request for 100% of the equity loss he incurred on the sale of his home was unreasonable and was not within the intent and spirit of the Canadian Forces (CF), Department of National Defence and Government of Canada relocation programs that are designed to support soldiers and their families as they are posted to meet the needs of the service. As redress, the grievor requested that he be reimbursed the outstanding balance of his loss, $64,900, from his Core funding envelope. Failing that, the grievor asked that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) refer his case to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL) for consideration and reimbursement as a claim against the crown.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision because the Director General Compensation and Benefits, the IA in this matter, could not render a decision in the required timeframe and the grievor declined to grant an extension.

The grievor purchased his home in 2007 for $449,900 and, upon posting in 2009, sold it for $370,000, an equity loss of $79,900. After being reimbursed $15,000 from his Core funding envelope, the grievor still had an equity loss of $64,900. The grievor indicated his total equity loss on the sale to be approximately 18.5% and estimated that there had been a market decline of approximately 18.2% in the Edmonton area. He acknowledged that those figures were below the 20% decline required by the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) provisions of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) for 2009 in order to be considered for 100% reimbursement. However, he argued that since he was not a realtor he should not be expected to confirm whether the value of real estate in his community did in fact fall by 20% or more, nor could he expect a realtor to provide him with such a detailed analysis for free. The grievor argued that the current CF IRP HEA provisions are not adequate to address the modern real estate market and that not granting his request would place his family in financial hardship.

The Board found that the CF IRP only provides for reimbursement of up to a $15,000 loss on the sale of a home unless a CF member can show that the sale was in a depressed market area with a decline of “more than 20%”. The grievor calculated the market decline to be less than the 20% required for 100% reimbursement of his equity loss. Therefore, the Board found that the grievor had been correctly treated in accordance with the HEA provisions of the CF IRP 2009.

Although the Board found that the grievor had been provided with all the HEA benefits to which he was entitled under the CF IRP 2009, it could not say that the grievor had been treated fairly. In fact, the Board considered the policy in this regard to be shamefully and woefully inadequate. The Board observed that it had commented on this issue several times over the past two years and now considered the HEA issue to be so serious that it demanded the personal and immediate attention of the CDS, perhaps with the assistance of the Minister.

Regarding the grievor’s request for the CDS to forward his file to DCCL, the Board did not support the request, finding that the grievor’s situation was directly addressed by Treasury Board (TB) approved policy and that any DCCL payment would appear to be circumventing approved TB policy.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–04–19

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied. The grievor did not suffer a 20% decline in housing costs as prescribed by section 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009.

The CDS reiterated his endorsement to the Board's systemic recommendation in previous cases that the HEA provisions be reviewed.