# 2012-164 Pay and Benefits, Definition of Community, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–04–29

The Grievor incurred a loss of over $65,000 on the sale of his condominium in Edmonton, Alberta. He received reimbursement in the amount of $15,000 based on his core benefit under the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP). He submitted an application for the reimbursement of the full amount of his loss on the grounds that his community was an area where housing sales were poor, under article 8.2.13 of the CFIRP.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) denied the request, pointing out that Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) had concluded in 2011 that the City of Edmonton did not meet the criteria for a depressed market.

The Board took issue with the DGCB decision, as the evidence of the case showed that the TBS decision applied not to the City of Edmonton but to St. Albert, Alberta. The Board concluded that the TBS decision did not address the Grievor's situation.

The Board had to determine whether the Grievor was eligible for reimbursement of 100% of the loss on the sale of his residence. For a housing market to be considered depressed, the Board had to determine whether, for the purposes of the policy on the Home Equity Assistance benefit, the area where the Grievor lived could be considered a community and whether the real estate market had declined by over 20% in that same community.

In the absence of a definition, the Board concluded that the Grievor's neighbourhood constituted a community for the purposes of the CF IRP because it has well-defined boundaries and available demographic data as well as the programs and services provided there. Furthermore, the Board noted that the property assessments and activity reports pertinent to the Grievor's situation show a market in decline and saturated with condominiums. The Board therefore concluded that the evidence of the case showed that the real estate market in the Grievor's community had declined by over 20% and that, accordingly, the Grievor's case should have been referred to the TBS for review.

As article 8.2.13 of the CF IRP states that a real estate market should be evaluated on the basis of comparable sales (comparable property types), the Board suggested that, in the Grievor's case, the TBS should determine depressed market status by evaluating only the condominium market within a geographic boundary where these same condominiums may be compared.

Finally, above and beyond the numbers, the Board's opinion was that the CF IRP policy is inflexible and allows no discretion for dealing with exceptional cases where the financial losses are large even without the market decline reaching 20%.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance and order the DGCB to refer the Grievor's case to the TBS for review.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–10–27

The CDS agrees with the Board's findings and its recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS concurs with the Board concerning the interpretation of the word ''community" in article 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009, recognizing that this word cannot be limited to the geographical boundaries of a city: given the lack of a precise definition in the policy, the word might also refer to a particular neighbourhood or a highly specific market. As per the Board's recommendation, the CDS ordered DGCB to forward the grievance to Treasury Board for resolution and to request a written decision. After receiving a systemic recommendation from the Board in several cases, including this one, the CDS ordered the Chief of Military Personnel to examine the relevance of the CF IRP provisions guaranteeing reimbursement of property losses so as to minimize the negative impact on CAF members.