# 2019-143 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program, Home Equity Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-06-17

The grievor was transferred with an imposed restriction (IR) on the relocation of his household goods and effects (HG&E). He was receiving separation expense (SE) benefits, including reimbursement for rent at his new place of duty. A few months later, the grievor and his spouse separated. So, his principal residence at his former place of duty was put up for sale. Since the grievor no longer had a dependent living at his principal residence, he was no longer eligible for SE benefits. However, at the time, he could not leave his accommodations at his new place of duty nor move his HG&E there, so he was eligible for unaccompanied relocation benefits, which covered his housing costs.

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) later recovered the amounts granted for the first two months' rent after the grievor's principal residence was listed for sale, claiming that the residence was not actively marketed, because the asking price exceeded the appraised market value. The grievor argued that the CAF did not inform him of this requirement and that without this information, he was unfairly denied reimbursement for two months' rent.

In July, the grievor moved his HG&E to his new accommodations at his new place of duty. Given his principal residence still had not sold after he had changed the sale price several times, the grievor requested that the time limit for selling his house be extended. The grievor argued that the relocation directives do not provide for marital breakdown during a period in which an IR is granted and that this particular situation should be taken into consideration in order to extend the time limit.

Finally, the grievor asked that the sale price of his residence, determined by Brookfield Global Relocation Services, be re assessed because he built the house himself. He claimed that the construction costs of his principal residence were not limited to the price of the prefabricated home and the land; rather, the costs also included the expenses he incurred for the work he did himself.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that by listing the principal residence at a price that was higher than the market value determined by a professional appraiser, the grievor failed to meet the criteria for his residence to be considered actively marketed—a requirement for the accommodations allowance. Therefore, the IA did not grant redress. The IA did not render a decision within the required time frame on the grievance related to the sale time limit or on the grievance related to the appraised purchase price of the principal residence. Consequently, the grievor asked that the grievances be referred to the Final Authority (FA).

Regarding the rent-related grievance, the Committee concluded that the residence's sale price did not have to be lower than the market value determined by the appraiser. The Committee cited the Chief of the Defense Staff who, in a previous decision, said that he did not agree with this interpretation of the directives and ordered that any publication stating this requirement be quashed. The Committee recommended to the FA that the two months' rent that had been recovered from the grievor be reimbursed.

Regarding the time frame for benefits related to the sale, the Committee found that the two year time limit did not apply to the grievor's transfer date but to the HG&E move date instead. Given the grievor had since sold his residence within that time limit, there was no need to grant redress.

Finally, the Committee concluded that the purchase contract for the prefabricated house specified that a fully constructed home would be delivered and that the work done by the grievor after delivery could not be included in the calculation of the purchase price, in accordance with the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program Directive. As a result, the Committee recommended not granting redress for this matter.

FA decision summary

The FA, the Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations. The FA concluded that the work done by the grievor in order to complete the residence was not included in the calculation for Home Equity Assistance and that the grievor not be granted redress.