# 2019-272 Pay and Benefits, Home Equity Assistance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-07-20

The grievor was posted from Cold Lake, Alberta in July 2017. In August 2017, the grievor sold his home located in the geographical boundaries of 4 Wing Cold Lake in the Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 (hereinafter “Bonnyville”), at an equity loss of almost $60,000. The grievor was reimbursed the maximum $15,000 in Home Equity Assistance (HEA) from his Core envelope under the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) in effect at the time.

On 19 April 2018, revisions to the CFIRP came into effect, removing the option to apply for 100% HEA reimbursement from the Core envelope for homes sold in a depressed market area. However, in May 2018 the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) retroactively designated Cold Lake to be a depressed market and, as of July 2018, applied this designation to houses sold in various periods between April 2016 and 18 April 2018 depending on the date of possession of the house. The grievor sought the full reimbursement of his equity loss as his former residence was bought and sold during the applicable timeframe and was located only two kilometers from the border of the City of Cold Lake.

The Initial Authority found that the grievor was not entitled to 100% reimbursement of HEA as a Core benefit, because Bonnyville was not assessed as a depressed market by TBS.

The Committee first considered whether the grievor's former residence met the CFIRP criteria for 100% reimbursement of HEA but found that his house was located outside the Cold Lake housing market area designated by TBS as depressed and, therefore, did not qualify for full reimbursement. The Committee then noted that in an interview given by the Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in May 2018, the DCBA stated that the intent of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was to, instead, address catastrophic home equity losses using a “caveat” found in the CFIRP. DCBA staff advised the Committee that the “caveat” was CFIRP article 2.1.01. The Committee found that CFIRP article 2.1.01 did not require the existence of a depressed market and applied to the grievor in that his issue was directly related to relocation, and the extent of his equity loss was exceptional in nature. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority direct DCBA to forward the grievor's claim for full reimbursement of his equity loss to the TBS with the full support of the CAF.