Grievance Case Summary - G-244

In 1995, the member's application for compensation under the Home Equity Assistance Plan (HEAP) for the loss on the sale of his house was refused on the ground that two appraisals obtained by the Force had shown a housing market decline of less than 10% between January 1990, when the member's house had been purchased, and August 1995, when it had been sold.

The member submitted a grievance against the refusal. He argued that one of the HEAP appraisals was inadequate because it did not analyze the market specific to the member's house. He also argued that his real estate agent's evidence showed a market decline of at least 10% and that the rate of market decline should not be determined by considering sales outside his neighbourhood. His agent's evidence included a list of all sales from 1990 to 1995 within his subdivision and throughout the city as a whole. The member also took issue with the fact that the HEAP appraisers had not included the actual cost of the improvements to his house in their estimates of the 1990 value of his house which, if done, would have shown that the value of the house had declined by greater than 10% between its purchase and sale dates. He contended that the appraised 1991 value of his house, which was higher than the appraised 1990 values, was a better indication of its 1990 value as it closely reflected the actual cost of the house, including improvements.

The Appropriate Officer replied that, as neither appraiser had indicated a 10% housing market decline, the refusal of the member's HEAP application was correct. Both the Grievance Advisory Board ("GAB") and the Level I adjudicator agreed and the adjudicator denied the grievance. Between the time of the GAB report and the Level I decision, the member had submitted his grievance to Level II but it was returned for a Level I decision. The member filed his Level II grievance four days after the time period for presentation had expired.

On December 16, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that a retroactive extension of the Level II time limit was warranted in this case. The Level I adjudicator's decision had not addressed the grievance time limit requirements as clearly or as thoroughly as it should have. The Committee was not satisfied that the information provided on the Level II time limits enabled the member to know that he had to file a new Level II grievance in order to meet the time limit. With respect to the merits, the Committee found that the rate of housing market decline could not be determined on the basis of market value estimates for the member's own property. Only actual sales of a number of similar properties could be used to arrive at that determination. It also found that the HEAP appraisers had assessed the appropriate housing market and that although it is possible for aggrieved members to attempt to rebut appraisal evidence through evidence of actual sales in the appropriate market over the relevant period, the member's evidence of sales in his neighbourhood had not shown a 10% housing market decline.

The Committee recommended that the Level II time limit be retroactively extended. It recommended that the grievance be denied on the merits.

On February 8, 2000, the Commissioner rendered his decision. His decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the Findings and Recommendations of the Committee. He accepted to extend the Level II grievance deadline. As for the merits, the Commissioner agreed that the evidence offered by the Grievor, for the determination of the market decline between the time of the purchase in 1990 and the time of the sale in 1995, was insufficient. The Commissioner did not find that there were "unreasonable discrepancies" between the two appraisals and he denied the grievance