# 2012-140 Pay and Benefits, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Marketing Incentive

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–01–18

The grievor experienced an equity loss of $37,000 on the sale of his residence on posting and paid a $2,000 marketing incentive for which he was not reimbursed. In accordance with the Canadian Forces (CF) Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the grievor was reimbursed the maximum of $15,000 for home equity assistance from his core funding envelope and $5,775 from his combined custom and personalized envelops, exhausting all available funds. The resulting home equity loss was $16,225.

Although the CF IRP restricts reimbursement from the core funding envelope to 80% of the loss, up to a maximum of $15,000, reimbursement can be increased to 100% of the loss if the member can show the location of the residence as being a depressed market area, defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%. The CF member and the Realtor must build and submit a case for depressed market status to the Director Compensation and Benefits (DCBA), through the CF Relocation Coordinator. DCBA will then forward it to the Treasury Board Secretariate for determination. The grievor and his realtor did not submit such a case. Therefore, the Board concluded that the grievor received the maximum home equity assistance benefit to which he was entitled under the provisions of the CF IRP.

That said, the Board agreed with the grievor and his Commanding Officer that the home equity assistance benefit is inadequate to appropriately address the needs of many CF members on posting. The Board strongly reaffirmed that the policy is long overdue for amendment and that the issue should be of great concern to the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of National Defence.

In examining the grievor’s marketing expense claim, the CF IRP states that the benefit may be paid from the custom funding envelope if the marketing incentive is recommended by the real estate agent and the service provider supports it. However, the policy also requires that the incentive be clearly identified on the original or any amended Property Listing Agreement and the Offer to Purchase document. In the case of the grievor, the marketing incentive was included on an amendment to the real estate purchase contract, but was not identified on the amended property listing agreement as required by the policy. The Board found that the grievor failed to meet the policy requirement for entitlement and observed that, even if he had, his custom and personalized envelopes were depleted of funds.

The Board recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–24

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. However, the CDS agreed with the Board that the situation incurred by CF members with the application of the current Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy is egregious. Therefore, the CDS confirmed the Board's systemic recommendation submitted in previous files on this matter and directed Director General Compensation and Benefits to actively review the adequacy of CFIRP HEA provisions with Treasury Board.