# 2014-044 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Mortgage Loan Insurance (MLI) premium

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Mortgage Loan Insurance (MLI) premium

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–02

he grievor was posted to a new geographical area and had not yet sold his house at origin when he proceeded to purchase a house at destination, incurring Mortgage Loan Insurance (MLI) fees. Approximately a year later, he was able to sell the house at origin at a loss of approximately $75,000.00 in equity. After paying out the remaining mortgage, the grievor had approximately $1,900 of equity remaining. He requested reimbursement of his MLI fees and applied for home equity assistance (HEA). Payment of HEA was approved but the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) denied the request for MLI on the basis that the grievor had not transferred the equity from the sale of his principal residence at origin upon the closing of the replacement residence. The grievor argued that the DCBA used a very restrictive interpretation of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) policy to deny him reimbursement.

There is no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the grievor denied a request from the IA for an extension.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was entitled to reimbursement of his MLI fees from his Core envelope.

The Committee first noted that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had recently made a determination on a similar grievance that had been reviewed by the Committee. In that matter, the Committee had found that there was a discrepancy between the French and English versions of the relevant article in the CF IRP. Although the English version in the CF IRP denied MLI benefits from the Core envelope in circumstances where the entire equity from the sale of the house at origin had not been transferred to the new house at destination at the time of closing, the French version did not. The Committee disagreed with the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) position that the Treasury Board never intended for MLI to be paid in such circumstances. The CDS agreed with the Committee and granted the grievance, directing that the grievor be reimbursed his MLI fees and that the DGCB take action to reconcile the discrepancy between the English and French versions of the CF IRP policy such that it would accurately reflect the true intent of the policy. Shortly after the CDS decision, the MLI benefit was eliminated from the CF IRP as a benefit for members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The Committee confirmed with DGCB staff that the previous grievor was not reimbursed his MLI fees from his Core envelope, contrary to the CDS direction.

The Committee then found that the amount of equity the grievor put into his replacement residence at destination exceeded the amount of equity he ultimately received from his sale at origin, therefore the grievor was entitled to MLI reimbursement on that basis alone. The Committee also found that the policy allows for reimbursement of MLI as a Core benefit where a former principal residence has not been sold prior to the purchase of the new replacement principal residence. In this case, the Committee concluded that the grievor's circumstances fell within the more reasonable interpretation of the policy, given that the sale at origin was completed less than two years following the grievor's change of strength date.

The Committee recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance and that he order the reimbursement of the grievor's MLI expenses from his Core envelope.

The Committee also observed that it was inappropriate for any CAF officer to ignore or reinterpret an order or direction from the CDS acting in his role as the Final Authority in the Grievance Process since such a decision is final and binding under section 29.15 of the National Defence Act.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–08–22

The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor's circumstances fall within a reasonable

interpretation of the policy and that he was entitled to MLI reimbursement from his APS 2010 Core envelope.

Page details

Date modified: