# Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)



## heavy reader (14 Jul 2010)

Hey folks:

Looking to start a discussion on HEA (100% from Core).  Anyone out there get hosed this posting season?  I understand that several applications have been sent up and none have been approved.

What's my stake?  I lost my shirt this APS, proved the 20% loss in local market decline and was denied.  Further admin action is pending.   Trying to find some anecdotal insights from others who bought high and sold low.

Appears to be quite a situation where policy states you are covered, then "poof" everything you have is gone.  How are others holding up after 100% HEA is denied.  How has it affected your lives?

Once the first 100% HEA is approved by Treasury Board, it will likely open up the flood gates and blow their budget out of control, perhaps that's why no one is being approved, hmmmm?

I realize that this does not likely affect a great number of us, but those who get blindsided by this are in for one helluva ride.  I know of three between $60,000 and $100,000 loss with only $15,000 from Core and peanuts from the other envelopes.  This does not include those who got out in 2007 (highest year for attrition) due to the skyrocketing housing prices.

Looks like the CF retention plan is working.  Bankrupt the soldier so that s/he can't quit.  Nice.

I'd welcome any comments (posted here) or to my e-mail at i_win@live.ca (got the e-mail address before I got my HEA application denied).

Ubique!


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2010)

I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jul 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.



I have been posted a few times since i joined and things were never based on market value. It was always based on assesed value and that usualy never came close to what you could sell it for.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I remember a briefing a little while ago stating that HEA will only pay money if you sell the house for less than what you paid for it, not its market value.... I could be remembering that incorrectly.



That makes sense.  Other wise we could see people in Pet who bought a house for $100K, put it on the market for $350K and the sell for $320K, then expect the Government to cough up the extra $30K that they figure they'd lost in the sale.  HEA is not another form of LOTO.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jul 2010)

I was under the impression that HEA was intended to offset losses for those who purchased "at fair market value [or assessed value??]" (not at "high"), but still had to sell at a loss.

Think it's bad this year?

Wait until those tax-free tours end next year and people start getting posted _out_ of places like Pet and try to sell off their vastly inflated value homes. A very big bubble is about to burst in those military 'deployment towns' and there aren't a lot of people going to be posted in willing to purchase a 3 bedroom mobile home for circa ~250K anymore ... HEA won't help them either as they bought at vastly inflated prices and not at fair market values.

Should get interesting.


----------



## captloadie (15 Jul 2010)

Here is what was required to prove a case from last year's IRP:

_Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.

Depressed market status may be evaluated when:

A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:

1.Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.

2.All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.

3.General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.

4.For real estate information: 
a.Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
b.Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
c.Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
d.Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
e.Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
f.Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
g.Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years. _

It looks like there is alot that needs to be done to prove one's case. Para 3 seems to indicate that the area has to be suffering pretty bad. I can almost guarantee that Edmonton, Calgary, Victoria, Toronto, Kingston, and Halifax will never be considered depressed areas, simply because only the housing market is in decline. Most people are still employed, and people are still moving to these areas for work. Greenwood might be another story.

If that weren't bad enough, I think until we start to see point 4 f above begin to be a factor, the Treasury Board will not approve an area as a depressed market.

Part of me also has little sympathy for people who are taking 50-100k losses on a 400-500+ K home. That probably means that they bought a house they really couldn't afford in the first place. Did they need 4 bedrooms, granite countertops, swimming pools in the best parts of town, expecting to make big money on resale? 

I'm now prepared for incoming rounds.


----------



## heavy reader (15 Jul 2010)

Here's how it played out in my situation.  Bought a house.  3 years later, posted.  Housing in the area dropped by more than 20% (average house selling price in the town).  IRP conducted their assessment (assessed value).  Sold within 95% of current assessed value, and incurred a loss of approx $90,000.  IRP covers 1st $15,000 out of CORE.  The rest comes out of the Custom/pers envelopes.  As these envelopes are quite small, I will be out of pocket for about $70,000.  That's about a years salary.

I was pretty torked when the req for HEA was denied, now I have to carry a $70,000 loss and come up with 5% down for a new house.  That's it in a nutshell.  No scope here of taking HEA as a "lotto", just trying to get by without having to declare bankruptcy (after 22 years service and saving like a scrooge).

And yes, I had considered the options of renting out (would be a montly loss vs a one time $70,000 out of pocket), posting turn down (which is now grounds for release and/or career action) and IR (which would see me away from my family until the housing market bounced back by 25% or so).  There's little room for manovre here, take the loss and be with your family or don't take the loss and loose your family.

Here's the real kicker - Treasury Board response to the application was "there were/no depressed markets in Canada".  How can they say that without assessing every town.  Doubt my application was even read at TBS.

COC,IRP, SISIP, peers are all sympathetic, but no-one is going to bat on this.  Will advise of any develpments.

In the meantime, I would like to hear from any others affected - what's your story?


----------



## heavy reader (15 Jul 2010)

Perhaps TBS could look into Home Equity Insurance product.  A US company has started such a monster and (at first glance) could offset these major losses.  If it were implemented in areas which were deemed overinflated (major bases or areas such as Vancouver), it COULD be effective.  Could be linked with those areas with a high Cost of Living (PLD) as assessments for housing prices are already done for those areas.  Even if it were an option for the relocating member to "opt in" for $5,000 from their own pocket, it could fill the need.

Here's a link I found with the pilot project in the states: http://www.homepriceshield.com/how.htm . I haven't seen anything like this avail in Canada though.

After all, CF IRP policy allows for Mortgage protection for the banks on our mortgages (CMHC/GENWORTH).  Why not protect the relocating member with a similar product/insurance?  

As for the number of forclosures being a factor in delcaring a depressed market, is it relevant?  An average  20% decrease in local home prices since the time of purchase sets the bar pretty high, considering the older HEAP program had the bar set at 10% market decrease, which was later removed after the SCONDVA report studied it and recommeded it's removal.  So why, all of a sudden has it gone from 10%, to 20%.  IMHO, cost savings for TBS.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jul 2010)

1.  The Government of Canada self-insures; that is, it doesn't buy insurance products for its assets.

2.  The GoC would not take out insurance on private property of its employees or service members.  

3.  If such insurance products are on the market, it would be the individual's responsibility to take out such insurance.  The insurance fees might be reimbursable.

4.  On the other hand, asking the Crown to cover off any losses without limit could arguably get the Crown to request a share of any appreciation - sharing of risk/reward.


Looking at the numbers you provided and doing a bit of reverse-engineering, I'm estimating you bought at $375K, had it assessed at $300K, and sold at $285K.  Not unreasonable amounts.


----------



## RUNRMAC13 (15 Jul 2010)

We received 100% reimbursement for HEA in the summer of 2008.  We lived in Windsor, ON and my wife was posted to CFB Esquimalt.  The IRP reps in Esquimalt said we were the first case they had seen where 100% HEA was given.  We purchased our home in Windsor December 2006 for $133,000 and had it up for sale April 2008.  It was assessed at $127,000.   We ended up selling it for $113,000, a $20,000 loss.  We had only lived there for 1.5 years, but Windsor experienced a significant downfall to its economy during that time.  Our realtor had to put together a package for TB that included everything listed above.  It took over 3 weeks to hear back, but in the end we got the 100%.  They covered up to what we had purchased the house for and we actually received a cheque in the end with the difference we had paid off the mortgage.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (15 Jul 2010)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Here's how it played out in my situation.  Bought a house.  3 years later, posted.  Housing in the area dropped by more than 20% (average house selling price in the town).  IRP conducted their assessment (assessed value).  Sold within 95% of current assessed value, and incurred a loss of approx $90,000.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity and to add context to the post, what market is this?


----------



## Maritimegal (16 Jul 2010)

My family is facing a similar situation. We were posted to Edmonton in 2007 at the height of the market. We didn’t wish to buy a home, but there was a 2 year wait list for PMQ’s ( when I asked why there was no vacancy, one CFHA rep said many military began moving into the Q's in the spring because they were selling their homes) and the vacancy rate in Edmonton was 1%. Finding an apartment was even an impossible task.  My husband was denied his request to stop his posting to Edmonton. 

Interestingly enough, they stopped posting soldiers to Edmonton later in the summer. After looking at all options, we decided to purchase a home outside the city limits as it was more affordable ie. 346,000 vice ½ million dollars. Spending that much on a home was not something we ever wanted to do. The home we purchased was a simple 3 bedroom, one bath home that we had to put a lot of work into to make it marketable this year. 

When we were posted, my husband was told to secure a residence, was denied a house hunting trip because he had to go to the field and I couldn't go because I was due to give birth any day. We began working with a real estate agent and there were literally no homes available. Homes would pop up on MLS and bidding wars would begin. 10 cars would line the street to make bids on homes. We ended up trying to bid on a few homes, but they would sell the next day. In desperation, we were lucky to buy our current home online sight unseen with the advice of a DND real estate agent and home inspection. For those who are reading this and think that who in their freaking right mind buys a home sight unseen, I could never fully describe to you the market and various pressures at the time. We were constantly being asked by my husband’s Chain of Command if we secured a residence and the IRP agent we spoke with said many families were doing the same thing including my military neighbour. As I mentioned renting was not an option. There was an extremely limited amount of rentals and the ones that did exist cost more than a mortgage, (not to mention the fact that rent was rising every month and there was no PLD until a year later). Our options were to rent a place we couldn't afford and go bankrupt slowly or overbid for a basic shelter over our heads. 

Prior to moving to Edmonton my family lived very frugally with one vehicle and an affordable mortgage. We lived on a strict budget, had savings and bought most things for our kid’s second hand. 

Our current situation is that my husband will now be heading out East on IR because we can’t afford to take the huge loss on our home. Our house has been listed for over 2 months and we have been told to list in the 280’s to have a better chance of selling. 280’s is still not even the appraised value we would need for TDRA! We are devastated at the thought of our family being separated for another year………..maybe two ………who knows. We were told our house is likely not to sell anyway because the market is over flooded. Renting is not an option as we will be renting at a loss and if there is any severe damage to the property we will fall further into a hole. We are in a situation where we have to choose between being together and facing financial stress or live separate for an undetermined amount of time until the market recovers (if ever!)

The military does a lot to work to improve the quality of life of its members. My husband is a proud soldier who takes pride in his service. We move around when were told because that’s his job. That being said, postings should not cause military families financial stress. The military knew the market was inflated and that housing was scarce. They were well aware PMQ’s and rentals were extremely limited. If the military did not want to reimburse 100% equity fine, but they should have made the call to stop ALL incoming postings in 2007 and advised soldiers NOT to purchase homes. Soldiers posted out that summer made a killing on their homes (kudos to them), but the military should have kept soldiers in Edmonton for one more year and things would have levelled out for everyone. 

By the way, I take offense to the comment about HEA being a LOTO. I don’t see any comments about anyone here trying to profit off the sale of their home. All that soldiers are discussing is the need for fairness in being able to break even in a situation they otherwise never would have faced had they not been ordered to Edmonton, a city that  was over inflated market and had scarce rental accommodations. 

Heavy Reader, thanks for your post. I know there are many other members out there in the same situation. I know some people have been advised to file bankruptcy. How is that fair?


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2010)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> My family is facing a similar situation. We were posted to Edmonton in 2007 at the height of the market. We didn’t wish to buy a home, but there was a 2 year wait list for PMQ’s ( when I asked why there was no vacancy, one CFHA rep said many military began moving into the Q's in the spring because they were selling their homes) and the vacancy rate in Edmonton was 1%. Finding an apartment was even an impossible task.  My husband was denied his request to stop his posting to Edmonton.
> 
> Interestingly enough, they stopped posting soldiers to Edmonton later in the summer. After looking at all options, we decided to purchase a home outside the city limits as it was more affordable ie. 346,000 vice ½ million dollars. Spending that much on a home was not something we ever wanted to do. The home we purchased was a simple 3 bedroom, one bath home that we had to put a lot of work into to make it marketable this year.
> 
> ...



I've got to comment on the yellow bits. The  military did NOT create the housing market. They should have kept soldiers in Edmonton and NOT posted them out!?? What!!?? Some of those soldiers had been "stuck" there for 10 or more years --- it was their turn to go to a cheaper place and have someone else replace them. And they did their expensive 10 years with zero benefit of PLD.

Experts have been saying for years "the housing bubble is going to burst" ... and it is beginning to happen. It is not just happening to soldiers. It is happening to Canadian homeowners almost everywhere. This is not, and was not, a situation caused by the military or military service nor is it exclusive to military families. When people get into bidding wars and pay 10s of Ks MORE than the assessed value of a home ... well ... ... the bottom has to fall out sometime. Homeownership has always come with risks; you make money/you lose money - that goes for ALL Canadians. We've got it pretty damn good having the govnt cover for us what they DO because most other employers don't even do that.

Given that, I wonder how many pers would be willing to "pay back" the system 90% of any profit they make when they sell their home on a posting (say we get to keep 10% of "profit" for ourselves)?? But, we expect them to pay us back 100% if we lose on a posting? After all, given your line of reasoning that "the military posting caused this!!" <--- it follows that the "military posting therefore causes both losses AND profits". Shouldn't the profit then be theirs too if they are to pony up for the loss?

Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.

________________________

Many years ago, my parents didn't want to lose money on their house when my father was posted; they improvised. He had a young soldier working for him who was renting a basement apartment and essentially "paying someone else's mortgage for them". Problem was, the lad (with wife & 2 kids) couldn't "live" and simultaneously "save a downpayment". So dad says, "my mortgage is less than what you are paying in rent every month. Why don't you and your family move into my house and pay me rent for 10 months ... we'll then consider all that rent money that as your downpayment." They talked to the bank. The bank was good-to-go. After 10 months, the house was transferred over into the young lads name and the totals of his rent money for the 10 months was considered to be the downpayment by the bank. It worked out well for both and got a family (of a soldier at that)  into their own home that probably would have been years trying to scrimp up for that downpayment.

Kind of like a rent-to-own if you will.


----------



## Occam (16 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Given that, I wonder how many pers would be willing to "pay back" the system 90% of any profit they make when they sell their home on a posting (say we get to keep 10% of "profit" for ourselves)?? But, we expect them to pay us back 100% if we lose on a posting? After all, given your line of reasoning that "the military posting caused this!!" <--- it follows that the "military posting therefore causes both losses AND profits". Shouldn't the profit then be theirs too if they are to pony up for the loss?



Joe Civvy that gets a job offer (or transfer offer, or offer of a better job with another company) gets a choice - move and suck up the loss on the home, or refuse the offer and continue on with their current job.  Similarly, someone from out of the area has the choice to either accept the job and pay a vastly inflated purchase price for a home, or keep their current job where they are and live in a realistic housing market.

The CF member doesn't get to do that.  He/she neither gets the option to remain in area indefinitely to avoid the loss, nor the option to refuse a posting into the inflated area.  Sure they have the option to release - but very few civvies get forced into that option, so why should the CF member?  I'll touch on IR later.

The notion that the CF should have any stake in any profit in the sale of the home is ludicrous.  The idea is that no CF member should be *disadvantaged* by a forced relocation.



> Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.



And which marriage/relationship are you on now?  IR was supposed to be a temporary fix - not a method to help families avoid moving altogether.


----------



## captloadie (16 Jul 2010)

Let's move away from the whole the CF forces us to move debate and back to the topic. There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow. 

The 100% HEA was meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, hence the reason the need to provide a 3 inch binder worth of information. I think terming the HEA as a lotto was incorrect, however, it may have been seen as a crutch or rescue net for some who moved. Maybe it wasn't explained the best it could have been. With 20-20 hindsight, some people may have made a different choice.

I think many of us take home ownership as a right. We have often been insulated from the real costs and turmoil of the real estate market because DND does a rather good job of reimbursing us for all the moving we do. However, based on our salaries, should many of us be purchasing homes 5-7 times our annual salary with a minimum down payment and a 35-40 year mortgage? 

To the posters who say they couldn't find a nice house under 300k when they moved, this should have been the first clue that sinking all ones savings into a single asset was a bad idea. Even renting a place for the equivalent of a mortgage would save some the huge losses they are going to take _if_ they _can_ sell their homes.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Joe Civvy that gets a job offer (or transfer offer, or offer of a better job with another company) gets a choice - move and suck up the loss on the home, or refuse the offer and continue on with their current job.  Similarly, someone from out of the area has the choice to either accept the job and pay a vastly inflated purchase price for a home, or keep their current job where they are and live in a realistic housing market.
> 
> The CF member doesn't get to do that.  .............




OK.  Yada. Yada. Yada.  

Point one was covered before, but once again, had the CF member made $100K or more on the sale of their home, as some have on posting, they would be celebrating, not complaining.  Hopefully they are wise enough to invest this wisely for any emergency or Real Estate downturn.   I am sure we can rehash Entering the CF and YOUR Money....   and reemphasize fiscal responsibility.

Point two:  Poor Joe Civvy does not get all his/her Real Estate, Movement, Legal Fees, etc.  reimbursed/paid for.  In the case of the OP, had he been a Civvy, instead of being out $90K, he could have been out several hundred K.

To be a little harsh, it has just been the luck of the draw.  How many postings have these people had, where they made money on the sale of a house compared to a loss?  Usually everything balances out in the end.  I do agree that at the end of 30 plus years of Service, this could be a real kicker.


----------



## Occam (16 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  Yada. Yada. Yada.
> 
> Point one was covered before, but once again, had the CF member made $100K or more on the sale of their home, as some have on posting, they would be celebrating, not complaining.  Hopefully they are wise enough to invest this wisely for any emergency or Real Estate downturn.   I am sure we can rehash Entering the CF and YOUR Money....   and reemphasize fiscal responsibility.



Who cares about the people who made money?  Again, the idea is that no CF member should be *disadvantaged* by a forced relocation.



> Point two:  Poor Joe Civvy does not get all his/her Real Estate, Movement, Legal Fees, etc.  reimbursed/paid for.  In the case of the OP, had he been a Civvy, instead of being out $90K, he could have been out several hundred K.



No he wouldn't have - were he/she a civvie, they'd have stayed put and not carried out the move, period.  Unless forced by circumstances to relocate - and very few civilians are ever placed in that situation - the choice would simply be to remain in the existing situation until more equity was built in the home, or the market turned around.



> To be a little harsh, it has just been the luck of the draw.  How many postings have these people had, where they made money on the sale of a house compared to a loss?  Usually everything balances out in the end.  I do agree that at the end of 30 plus years of Service, this could be a real kicker.



Who cares how many postings they've had where they made money?  *That money wasn't paid out of government coffers, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.*



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Let's move away from the whole the CF forces us to move debate and back to the topic. There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow.



The "CF forces us to move" debate is a core issue to the topic.  The policy that is in place is not fair nor suitable to the situations that the CF places us in.



> I think many of us take home ownership as a right. We have often been insulated from the real costs and turmoil of the real estate market because DND does a rather good job of reimbursing us for all the moving we do. However, based on our salaries, should many of us be purchasing homes 5-7 times our annual salary with a minimum down payment and a 35-40 year mortgage?
> 
> To the posters who say they couldn't find a nice house under 300k when they moved, this should have been the first clue that sinking all ones savings into a single asset was a bad idea. Even renting a place for the equivalent of a mortgage would save some the huge losses they are going to take _if_ they _can_ sell their homes.



I was posted to Ottawa two years ago.  We purchased a modest "fixer-upper" in the east end for $265K.  Spent some money fixing it up to the same standard as the rest of the neighbourhood, which are $300-320K homes.  If I'm posted in two years, and the real estate bubble has truly just burst, then we have no hope of even breaking even on the home - and Ottawa is not a depressed area, although some might describe it as depressing.  If I'm still around in two years (and I have instructed my co-workers to kick my ass if that's the case), then I'll pull the pin whether I have a PS job or not.  I'll sell toilets at Rona and draw my CFSA pension before I move again.


----------



## heavy reader (16 Jul 2010)

One of the main themes in these discussions is that of fairness, equity and the military member's responsibilities.  There is a common thread which has been reviewed in the SCONDVA report, that the government is responsible and that the CF members do deserve protection due to the particularities of their work.

The arguments above are valid, but not new.  The rights and responsibilities of the CF and the relocating member have been previously made to SCONDVA, Treasury Board and Parliament .  The decisions for reimbursement allowances firmed up.  The end result is the policy which we have to go by.  This is the IRP policy.  So again, I ask, if a member meets the requirements (20 % depressed market), how can Treasury Board decree that there "were/no depressed markets in Canada", when the member provides proof.  Its great that there is a policy, it sets an expectation that the policy will be adhered to.  Lord knows that if the relocating member doesn't follow the policy for any aspect of relocation, they are held accountable.  How about the policy administrators?

This is a leadership issue that should be addressed with TBS.  Specifically as the promices of taking care of our members have been made by current and previous CDS, CMP etc.  Here's a non exhaustive list of some of those commitments to provide insight:

CANFORGEN 078/10 2010 (CF IRP)
CANFORGEN 130/09 CMP 056/09 201717Z Jul 09
National Defence.  Accommodation in support of the Canadian Forces: A Vision for 2020
National Defence.  Chief Review Services – Audit of Military Moves March 2007.  7050-10-2-4 (CRS).  
DAOD 5044-1 Canadian Forces Commitment to Families

Someone earlier asked what market I was in for my loss, it is Edmonton.


----------



## Maritimegal (16 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Your husband also had the option of going to Edmonton IR in the first place if you could not afford a home there. Three of my pers were posted to Edmonton from the East Coast in the same year you were; each went there IR due to the high housing costs. Yeah, I know IR is a sucky choice ... but it is a choice/option ... I'm on the third one of my career.
> 
> ________________________



Just to put a spin on things here. Say my husband did go on IR to Edmonton for 3 years. They are paying to put members up in private accommodations with rent as high as 1800/mth plus Separation expense and low rate dinner allowance. Soldiers were put out of the shacks because accommodations were so limited. Over a three year period the costs would be around $80,000, less than the loss I am taking on my house.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> And which marriage/relationship are you on now?  IR was supposed to be a temporary fix - not a method to help families avoid moving altogether.



You forgot that Joe civvy also has a choice when his employers tell him they are relocating him ... "Relcoate or be out of a job, and, do so without us paying a single thing for you. No real estate fees, nada".

Yes, you are correct, we have it soooooooo tough in the CF.  :

As for my relationship status - as if THAT has anything to do with the above - I'm on my second. The 1st marriages failure also had sweet fuck all to do with any IR posting. Had I stayed in that marriage another 11 months, we'd have experienced our 19th anniversary. is that a good enough answer for you??

By the way, I've got 22 years in and am on my 10th posting. 10 pack up and move postings. Using IR as a method to haelp my family avoid moving all together?? You obviously do not know my family very well.  :  3 IRs out of 10 postings STILL leaves my family moving seven times in the last 22 years ... I guess that indeed makes it the "temporary fix" that it was supposed to be eh??  :

The sense of "entitlement" amongst some these days is atrocious. My question on giving back the "profits" of home sales was rhetorical ... I knew damn well that people would NOT be good to go with that. Quelle surprise ... NOT.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2010)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> Just to put a spin on things here. Say my husband did go on IR to Edmonton for 3 years. They are paying to put members up in private accommodations with rent as high as 1800/mth plus Separation expense and low rate dinner allowance. Soldiers were put out of the shacks because accommodations were so limited. Over a three year period the costs would be around $80,000, less than the loss I am taking on my house.



BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?

Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."

Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get.


----------



## Occam (16 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You forgot that Joe civvy also has a choice when his employers tell him they are relocating him ... "Relcoate or be out of a job, and, do so without us paying a single thing for you. No real estate fees, nada".



Those situations where civvies are forced to relocate with no other option are few and far between, and when they do occur, they are able to claim those moving expenses against their income tax.  That includes:  transportation and storage costs, travelling and meal expenses, temporary meal and lodging expenses at both ends of the move, legal fees, deed transfer fees, real estate commission and any mortgage-breaking penalties.  If I were in the position of choosing between taking a huge loss on the sale of my home in order to keep my current position, and having to look for another civilian job, I know which one I'd choose.



> As for my relationship status - as if THAT has anything to do with the above - I'm on my second. The 1st marriages failure also had sweet frig all to do with any IR posting. Had I stayed in that marriage another 11 months, we'd have experienced our 19th anniversary. is that a good enough answer for you??



My question on which marriage/relationship you are on now was rhetorical...I'll take your word at face value that your failed marriage was not caused by frequent moves, IR and the associated strain on the marriage, but there are a lot of failed marriages out there which *were* caused by those conditions.  See SCONDVA if you don't believe me.



> By the way, I've got 22 years in and am on my 10th posting. 10 pack up and move postings. Using IR as a method to haelp my family avoid moving all together?? You obviously do not know my family very well.  :  3 IRs out of 10 postings STILL leaves my family moving seven times in the last 22 years ... I guess that indeed makes it the "temporary fix" that it was supposed to be eh??  :



Congratulations.  I have a fair bit more time in than you, and have one cost move to my name.  That doesn't negate the fact that IR was not designed to be anything more than a year or two stopgap measure to allow kids to finish school without a move interrupting their final year, or other temporary conditions.  It certainly was NOT meant to allow a family to stay in place for the duration of an entire posting to prevent the member from having to sell during a lull in the housing market.  I'd love to see how much IR is costing DND these days.



> The sense of "entitlement" amongst some these days is atrocious. My question on giving back the "profits" of home sales was rhetorical ... I knew damn well that people would NOT be good to go with that. Quelle surprise ... NOT.



This has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.  If the forced move of a CF member causes them to be at a financial disadvantage, then there should be a reliable mechanism in place to compensate them for reasonable expenses related to the loss.  

As for the "giving back the profits of home sales" point, it wasn't rhetorical, it was downright ridiculous, and had no place being brought up.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Those situations where civvies are forced to relocate with no other option are few and far between, and when they do occur, they are able to claim those moving expenses against their income tax.  That includes:  transportation and storage costs, travelling and meal expenses, temporary meal and lodging expenses at both ends of the move, legal fees, deed transfer fees, real estate commission and any mortgage-breaking penalties.  If I were in the position of choosing between taking a huge loss on the sale of my home in order to keep my current position, and having to look for another civilian job, I know which one I'd choose.



Glad you brought this up.  A house is an investment.  What are the rules; specifically are there any that would prevent a member, such as in this case, from claiming this loss in their Income Tax Return?


----------



## Occam (16 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Glad you brought this up.  A house is an investment.  What are the rules; specifically are there any that would prevent a member, such as in this case, from claiming this loss in their Income Tax Return?



According to CRA, a loss on the sale of a home cannot be claimed under moving expenses.


----------



## heavy reader (16 Jul 2010)

As for income tax, the loss on a home sale cannot be claimed as a capital loss.  The only exception is if part of your home is used for a business.  

Further, half of any Home Equity Assistance above $15 is considered a taxable benefit.  I.e. If you had a 90K loss, $37,500 would be considered pers income and you would be taxed for it accordingly.  

Even if approved for 100% HEA from Core, the tax man will come a callin'.  This is due to the Canada Revenue Agency regulations.  Therefore, even if you "win" you loose.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> That doesn't negate the fact that IR was not designed to be anything more than a year or two stopgap measure to allow kids to finish school without a move interrupting their final year, or other temporary conditions.



You forgot married service couples.  Not a heck of a lot of choice there, except for one to release and lose a pension they've paying into for quite some time, not to mention severance pay, etc.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> It certainly was NOT meant to allow a family to stay in place for the duration of an entire posting to prevent the member from having to sell during a lull in the housing market.  *I'd love to see how much IR is costing DND these days*.



Are you in Ottawa?  I bet they have the highest rate of IR in the country.  People have been there for years on IR, simply because their spouse doesn't want to move.  IMHO, the IR is being abused at that point.


----------



## REDinstaller (16 Jul 2010)

I'm sure that Cartier Suites would hate to see IRs in Ottawa end. What a loss of income that would be.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> According to CRA, a loss on the sale of a home cannot be claimed under moving expenses.



I wasn't thinking along the lines of "moving expenses".  It may have been a result of having to move, indirectly, but it would have been a loss on an investment.  The Government would have been after you for "Capital Gains" if you made too large a profit on the sale, but what about a loss?

I think this has been answered in the posts fol yours.

How can you tell I am not an Accountant?   ;D


----------



## REDinstaller (16 Jul 2010)

And any reimbursment is subject to taxes. My WO got posted out of Winsor in 08, and got his HEA, then found out it was a taxable benefit.


----------



## Maritimegal (18 Jul 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Let's move away from the whole the CF forces us to move debate and back to the topic. There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow.
> 
> The 100% HEA was meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, hence the reason the need to provide a 3 inch binder worth of information. I think terming the HEA as a lotto was incorrect, however, it may have been seen as a crutch or rescue net for some who moved. Maybe it wasn't explained the best it could have been. With 20-20 hindsight, some people may have made a different choice.
> 
> ...




In Heavy Readers post, he indicated he proved the "community" not Edmonton he bought in is depressed by 20% since he purchased his residence. The policy does not read: Situation void if home bought when prices were inflated. By the time I sell my home, I will lose roughly the same amount and I did not buy a home 5-7 times our annual salary. There are factors in my specific community outside Edmonton that have further contributed to the market decline.  DCBA has been rejecting claims on the basis that no markets in Canada are depressed. I wonder if they are just grouping all CF members in with the city of Edmonton market which is quite different than the real estate market in small communities outside the city (but are part of the geographical area).

If cases are truly examined on an individual basis, and you prove and provide the requirements listed, I don't see any reason for the case being declined. I am sure the CF is well aware of this issue, but realizes if they pay one person, there will be many more cases to follow.





> I've got to comment on the yellow bits. The  military did NOT create the housing market. They should have kept soldiers in Edmonton and NOT posted them out!?? What!!?? Some of those soldiers had been "stuck" there for 10 or more years --- it was their turn to go to a cheaper place and have someone else replace them. And they did their expensive 10 years with zero benefit of PLD



I never said the military created the housing market. What I said was they posted soldiers into an over inflated market that had a 1% rental vacancy. The Base Commander at the time was quoted in articles stating he was aware of the issue. The point I was trying to make was if the CF was aware of the issue, leadership should have made a better judgment call. I agree that it would not necessarily have been fair to the soldiers that have been in Edmonton for 10 years, but your latter comment makes no sense. Edmonton was not “expensive” prior to 2007. Housing was completely affordable. My neighbors paid 170 for their home……completely reasonable. PLD was only brought in to offset the costs of the ridiculous market and I’m sure will be diminished in the upcoming years as the prices have dropped dramatically.

Quote from: Maritimegal on July 16, 2010, 10:50:16
Just to put a spin on things here. Say my husband did go on IR to Edmonton for 3 years. They are paying to put members up in private accommodations with rent as high as 1800/mth plus Separation expense and low rate dinner allowance. Soldiers were put out of the shacks because accommodations were so limited. Over a three year period the costs would be around $80,000, less than the loss I am taking on my house. 



> BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?
> 
> Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."
> 
> Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get.



It does not make fiscal sense to pay out 80,000 for a soldier to be separated from their family for three years (when the CF promotes quality of life) rather than pay out HEA as per the policy (depressed 20%) which is less. IR is intended for short term separations, not multiple years. The way I see it, it is the crown’s money and leadership is responsible to ensure it is allocated in a way that both makes fiscal sense and contributes to the quality of life of soldiers and families.


----------



## armyvern (19 Jul 2010)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> It does not make fiscal sense to pay out 80,000 for a soldier to be separated from their family for three years (when the CF promotes quality of life) rather than pay out HEA as per the policy (depressed 20%) which is less. *IR is intended for short term separations, not multiple years. The way I see it, it is the crown’s money and leadership is responsible to ensure it is allocated in a way that both makes fiscal sense and contributes to the quality of life of soldiers and families.*



Gee, 'ya think?? Now there's something I didn't know and have absolutely no experience in.  :

One of my IRs was to replace a member who was Court Martialled, found guilty & released. It was an immediate & must-fill posn. I went out of APS - in the middle of the school year. I was there 2 years. Others refused it with things like "if you post me I'm getting out" or "if you post me, my wife is going to leave me" and "I'll get out if you send me because I've only got 2 years left to go and I'll get out rather than move." Of course, some of them had wives who didn't work and/or no kids but still refused. Not me though - and, of course, there were no positions of my spouses rank/trade in the entire province.

One was to a 2nd location while I underwent trg.

The third one is now because the family is posted to another base and, apparently, there are no MWO posns my trade avail there (except of course for the few that have been there going on 10 and more years now.  :).

What about my QoL?? Maybe you missed the part where I said my family HAS moved 7 times in 22 years.

It's the job WE sign up to do. We move - when and where they tell us to. NOT moving people (as you suggested) and people refusing postings has a trickle down effect onto those of us who DO do our jobs when & where told. We're the ones with way too many postings in way too few years while others sit at bases and rot. Don't like it and don't like our multitudes of options?? Get out; that is an option too.


----------



## captloadie (19 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Glad you brought this up.  A house is an investment.  What are the rules; specifically are there any that would prevent a member, such as in this case, from claiming this loss in their Income Tax Return?


The highlighted part is the core of the current housing meltdown. A house should not be an investment. It should be a home. Would anyone have taken that same 300k and invested it in a medium to high risk stock and hoped for the best? If you want to read some real sob stories from the civvy side, peruse Garth Turner's blog at

 http://www.greaterfool.ca/

I don't agree with alot he says, but I do like to chuckle at the poor DINKs who write in and cry they can't afford their home on their 200k combined income.


----------



## Occam (19 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> One of my IRs was to replace a member who was Court Martialled, found guilty & released. It was an immediate & must-fill posn. I went out of APS - in the middle of the school year. I was there 2 years. Others refused it with things like "if you post me I'm getting out" or "if you post me, my wife is going to leave me" and "I'll get out if you send me because I've only got 2 years left to go and I'll get out rather than move." Of course, some of them had wives who didn't work and/or no kids but still refused. Not me though - and, of course, there were no positions of my spouses rank/trade in the entire province.
> 
> One was to a 2nd location while I underwent trg.
> 
> ...



What you have just described is not an IR problem.  It is a "career manager needs to grow a pair" problem.  They are completely distinct from one another, and if they exercised a little more resolve in issuing posting messages to people who have grown 10-year roots in a posting location, they wouldn't have to force people onto IR anywhere near as often.


----------



## Oldsapper (19 Jul 2010)

I would like to join the discussion on the matter Home equity loss:

Posted 2007 to Edmonton from Gagetown in July 2007;
Posted to CFJSG HQ in Kingston, Ontario 2008;
Went on IR 2008-2009 due to lack of home sale; and
On Aug 14 2009 home finally sold at a substantial loss.

I have submitted:
       a.      A request for compensation (adjudication) through Directorate of Compensations, Benefits & Administrations (DCBA), Treasury  Board (TB)

       b.      A request for compensation (Grievance) through Directorate of General Compensations, Benefits & Administrations (DGCBA)  through TB.

Both were refused because TB had not deemed the area of home purchased as a "Depressed Market".  I have completed a submission of compensation for those losses which I believes to be directly related to the reimbursement of actual, reasonable and legitimate relocation expenses which have been incurred by my family and I due to the posting to Edmonton in APS 07 and subsequently being posted to Kingston, ON APS 2009.

Whether or not the 2009 values are formally considered "depressed" or the 2008 values considered artificially high, the fact remains that my family and I incurred a substantial loss due to a combination of my posting and a change in the market.  My expectation as a CF member is that he should not be placed in a position that leaves him and his family in such an extreme financial situation

"I should not gain nor should I lose money in this situation"

I'm currently working with the Ombudsman's Office and I have initiated a Administarial review of Treasury board policy.  WRT changes to allow claims based on the actual change in a market over a posting, as opposed to a market being classified as "depressed".

Has anyone gone this route yet?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2010)

And people ask me why I'm not buying a house.... Yes, I know PMQs are hard to come by in places like Edmonton, but given the choice between living in an "ok" PMQ or losing tens of thousands of dollars on a house I might be in for a max of 3 years, I'd rather the Q.


----------



## armyvern (20 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> What you have just described is not an IR problem.  It is a "career manager needs to grow a pair" problem.  They are completely distinct from one another, and if they exercised a little more resolve in issuing posting messages to people who have grown 10-year roots in a posting location, they wouldn't have to force people onto IR anywhere near as often.



The person that I was responding to made this a QoL issue ... with a recommendation that postings be ceased etc in situations where this "may" occur.

Although I 100% agree with you on your "career manager" statement above --- those career managers would argue that "they were worried about the QoL of those pers who whined and wiggled out of their postings by using QoL arguements". It short, career management considered their QoL, but not that of us others who then actually DO do our jobs by heading to these same posns "others refused based on their family and/or [in this thread's suggestion] financial's Qol".

One man's "good QoL" has the "opposite" effect on the soldier that then ends up tagged to go do the job that has to be done.

Oh, and it wasn't the Career Managers who deemed "retention *IS* to be the priority of goal of career managers". Careers was only trying to comply with that little directive. We all see how that worked out ... "retaining" someone else after +8 years of rot in one spot caused a whole lot of others to say "well, glad you looked after that guy - but I'm the one who got shafted into an IR because of it so I'm pulling the pin instead of him now. Congrats, you're now stuck instead with the guy who doesn't do his job when/where told."

The pendulum is swinging the other way and back to reality now finally. Refusal of a posting is now grounds for Career action and/or release. Good.

Now, I'm, left wondering when they'll cut-off the absolutely unnecessary IR gravy-train. A friend of mine (a civvy) and spouse have aleady been told they are posted across the country next year after 8 years in the same spot. She has stated flat-out that she "will NOT be moving with him and that he'll have to go IR". No kids at home. She doesn't work. They live in a Q. I asked "what would his grounds for IR be?" She responded that "there's no way I'm moving acrross the country, we're settled here now and he's only got 3 years left to do." I did tell her that "IR was NOT an entitlement" and that "If I were CM, I wouldn't be authorizing it [IR costs] in your case because there's NO substantiated reason (work/child education/home ownership etc) to avoid this posting" so why should the taxpayer pay?? She said "our QoL".  :

Sorry, no kids; no kids in school? Wife that doesn't work, but wife just *doesn't want *to relocate? "IR benefits denied". <--- That's why I'll never find myself being posted to the career shop.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Now, I'm, left wondering when they'll cut-off the absolutely unnecessary IR gravy-train. A friend of mine (a civvy) and spouse have aleady been told they are posted across the country next year after 8 years in the same spot. She has stated flat-out that she "will NOT be moving with him and that he'll have to go IR". No kids at home. She doesn't work. They live in a Q. I asked "what would his grounds for IR be?" She responded that "there's no way I'm moving acrross the country, we're settled here now and he's only got 3 years left to do." I did tell her that "IR was NOT an entitlement" and that "If I were CM, I wouldn't be authorizing it [IR costs] in your case because there's NO substantiated reason (work/child education/home ownership etc) to avoid this posting" so why should the taxpayer pay?? She said "our QoL".  :
> 
> Sorry, no kids; no kids in school? Wife that doesn't work, but wife just *doesn't want *to relocate? "IR benefits denied". <--- That's why I'll never find myself being posted to the career shop.



Vern, I'm with you 100% on that one.   :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Vern, I'm with you 100% on that one.   :nod:



Same here.  Looks like this woman is riding the "Welfare Gravy Train" and hasn't even bought a ticket.  Kick her off before the next stop.


----------



## HappyGilmore (20 Jul 2010)

I’m a lurker on this site, but wanted to join this thread. I’m facing a huge loss on my home this summer and am posted in Edmonton. I’ve been having difficulty sleeping from the stress of it all. 

I didn’t want to move to Edmonton, but sucked it up just like the multiple deployments over the years and taskings that I’ve done. Leaving my family behind on the opposite coast was not an option. I had been away from them enough. Like others, I could not find a rental accomodation or a PMQ.

Despite my loyal service to the CF, I am considering releasing to avoid separation from my family yet again and the financial hardships selling my home at a loss will bring. I have a very marketable degree and do not need to be in the CF to survive. I joined the service because I take pride in serving my country. I’ve been very loyal with my service, but this situation had made it clear that I need to make my family and their financial well being my number one priority, not my service. After all, they will be the ones who will there for me long after my service ends. I am not going to continue to move my family around if the CF does not offer affordable housing or a better equity loss compensation program.

I’ve written a letter to my MP and am glad to see that people are pushing their cases and hope that the momentum continues. 

I want to finish my post by expressing my disappointment in the large number of negative comments from people on here. Why kick your fellow soldiers when they are down? It’s easy to sit back and judge others when you are not in the situation. I don't think the thread was  intended to bash others. The poster was asking if there are other people out there in a situation similar to his.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2010)

We the Moderators of this site would like to point out to some posting in this thread this very important topic:

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines


----------



## 40below (20 Jul 2010)

_Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Milnet.ca as a whole._

Thanks for the link, George. So claiming someone is on the  "Welfare Gravy Train" is against site guidelines? Someone should delete that post and put the user on warning.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> _Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Milnet.ca as a whole._
> 
> Thanks for the link, George. So claiming someone is on the  "Welfare Gravy Train" is against site guidelines? Someone should delete that post and put the user on warning.



Thank you 40below.  Of course you did read the whole topic and therefore know to what that reference was made?  Perhaps you would be so kind as to PM me the name of the member of this site to whom we are referring to?   As is, there is a member posting in this topic who does have some answering to do, and for now you can rest assured that it isn't you..........yet.   :nod:


----------



## armyvern (21 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> _Posts that contain a personal attack should be summarily deleted, and the user should normally receive a warning. Personal attacks detract from the professionalism of the site and can sometimes cause serious problems for Milnet.ca as a whole._
> 
> Thanks for the link, George. So claiming someone is on the  "Welfare Gravy Train" is against site guidelines? Someone should delete that post and put the user on warning.



_Hmmmm, I'm wondering if you were referring to me? _ 
I haven't said anyone posting in this thread was "on the welfare gravy-train" as you claim in your post. So, what is against site guidelines? I actually told someone (Maritimegal) that "IR was an option" given the financial implications that their house sale would cause; also said that release was. And, those are facts <--- as well as options.

I used the term "welfare-gravy train" in describing the situation/reasoning of one of MY friends who has NO basis for requesting IR (no kids at home; no kids in school; she doesn't work, and they don't own a house). They intend to apply for IR anyway simply because *she just doesn't want to move*. Those are also facts. It is also a fact that she is not the only one out there. THOSE people are riding the IR gravy-train - and I'm wondering when stuff like that is going to end. 

_Moe then posted a comment in ref to the indivdual (my friend) that I posted about. As did George. No violation of any site guideline there either. _ 

This is all relevant to this topic simply because Maritimegal made the suggestion that the CF, in the future, STOP postings for a year or so in cases where markets are volitile or losing money on homesales would occur. I'm pointing out that THAT is not a viable option. Such an act may have financial benefit to her family in that she may lose less money if postings to that location for CF members were delayed until the next year, BUT that means others who are already there stagnating in their careers already for 10 years are stuck there longer or that others (who shouldn't be posted anywhere that year) instead end up posted in to the location IR to fill posns where people are releasing/retiring etc at the expense of THEIR families on a temp basis until the ppostings that Maritimegal suggested be "stopped for the year" start up again.

No one relishes this situation. It's not nice. But it needs to be clear, it's also "not nice" when looking after one family has the opposite effect on another. That happens all too often and I'm quite happy to see the pendulum swing the other way. I understand Happy Gilmore's comments only too well. I understand that I've done 3 IRs away from my family (for the reasons stated earlier); I also understand that my family has still moved 7 times in 22 years despite my IRs and despite all my being away from home on tours & taskings. I also understand that the reason my family HAS moved those 7 times is because others have refused moves (for whatever reasons: loss of FOA etc) to some of those spots I went to fill. And, as I also already said, that little fact is also causing releases; lots of them in the past couple of years. And that's sad to see - especially when we exists in a CF these days where some people think 4 moves in their entire career are "way too many" and bad for their QoL. Some of us only dream of finally getting a posting where our families can stay in one place for more than 3 years and don't find ourselves posted out again when one of our co-workers refuses because "nope, no can do" after he's already been there 6 or 7 or 10.


----------



## Neill McKay (27 Jul 2010)

I don't mean to take this thread too far off-track, but one thing that's been noted a couple of times is the lack of available PMQs at various bases.  I find that surprising, given that the regular force is, even net of recent expansion, quite a bit smaller than it was a few decades ago.  If anything I'd expect there to be a surplus of military housing.  Is it just a matter of the Crown being very thorough in divesting itself of surplus housing during the lean years, or what?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't mean to take this thread too far off-track, but one thing that's been noted a couple of times is the lack of available PMQs at various bases.  I find that surprising, given that the regular force is, even net of recent expansion, quite a bit smaller than it was a few decades ago.  If anything I'd expect there to be a surplus of military housing.  Is it just a matter of the Crown being very thorough in divesting itself of surplus housing during the lean years, or what?



That would seem to be sensible, but what the CF has done in many places, is demolish Qtrs.  Why?  With the method that they pay "taxes" of specifically monies in lieu of taxes to municipalities calculated on square footage of buildings on Base, monies were saved by demolition of buildings.  In 1995 CFB Petawawa demolished 95+ buildings, which included Messes, Qtrs, hangars, etc.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jul 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't mean to take this thread too far off-track, but one thing that's been noted a couple of times is the lack of available PMQs at various bases.  I find that surprising, given that the regular force is, even net of recent expansion, quite a bit smaller than it was a few decades ago.  If anything I'd expect there to be a surplus of military housing.  Is it just a matter of the Crown being very thorough in divesting itself of surplus housing during the lean years, or what?



Something on the order of half the PMQs in Edmonton were sold to Crown Lands when Greisbach closed. As families move out of the Greisbach units, they were in turn rented or sold to the general public. The result now being a PMQ shortage.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jul 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't mean to take this thread too far off-track, but one thing that's been noted a couple of times is the lack of available PMQs at various bases.  I find that surprising, given that the regular force is, even net of recent expansion, quite a bit smaller than it was a few decades ago.  If anything I'd expect there to be a surplus of military housing.  Is it just a matter of the Crown being very thorough in divesting itself of surplus housing during the lean years, or what?



Gagetown also plowed under a great many singles quarters on base and PMQs. By the responses here to your question so far -- it would seem that taking that action was the "in" thing to do for a period of time.


----------



## Wookilar (27 Jul 2010)

In all defence though, those Q's where costing us a metric boatload of money to fix and maintain. Edmonton was not ready for us when we moved from Calgary and the condition of those Q's showed it. When the decision wa made to get rid of Greisbach, the market was very reasonable and there were no real indicators of what was going to happen.

We were already paying Strathcona County $1 mil + in lieu of taxes, I can just imagine what the city was charging us.

Wook


----------



## captloadie (28 Jul 2010)

Because policy now dictates that PMQ rates need to match market values, more PMQ's would only alleviate the shortage of housing, but not the cost of living involved. The days of subsidized housing are over, which is one of the offsets of the increased pay rates we received. 
I personally can only justify DND owned housing in a few areas. SQs on base for members attending course, or personnel on IR, (everyone else should have to live on the economy) and quarters in areas like Ottawa for people on IR, if the cost analysis made it worth while.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2010)

So instead of being able to live in a 4bdrm PMQ, the Pte IPC 3 in my shop with 3 kids under 6 would have to move out onto the economy? He's paying close to $800 a month for the PMQ. This guy would be in the poor house if he had to find a civvie house to rent, or trapped in a ridiculous mortgage in a bad part of town with no hope of reselling his house when he's posted. Its not like he's been overseas yet to build up some downpayment money. No PMQs is just as bad as saying there are no depressed markets in Canada.

There should be an adequate number of decent PMQs available at 95% of bases for those who want them. Preference given to low rank and number of kids.


----------



## TimBit (28 Jul 2010)

captloadie:

I disagree with you. PMQ's and military housing are a fundamental part of not only military administration, but lifestyle, in most militaries of the western world. Their reason for being is to provide flexibility which the market may not be able to provide. I am sorry, but if you are posted out of season twice in two years from one small community to another, it may not be feasible to find conveniently located affordable housing to suit your family needs. Again, it all comes down to the one thing service personnel are asked to do which few others are: move whenever told wherever told. In this context, Q's provide flexibility, i.e. the choice b/w the economy, if doable, or  another option.

I think Q's on all bases should remain.


----------



## captloadie (28 Jul 2010)

With the exception of maybe Edmonton, where else is there a shortage of rental accommodations near areas members get posted to? The issue of cost is supposed to be irrelevant, as PMQs are expected to be at or near market value for the area. I have been posted out twice in two years, one of those time out of season, and guess what I had to do until I sold my old house and found something new? That's right, I went IR. 

Lots of companies, and other Government departments move people around, and they normally don't have subsidized housing? Does the RCMP have accommodations for the Mounties in all the little places they get posted too?

And as for the poor private with three kids who couldn't afford to live without a PMQ, really? It is called family planning. Don't have more kids than you can afford to look after.

Anyway, I think we have probably hijacked this thread long enough.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> With the exception of maybe Edmonton, where else is there a shortage of rental accommodations near areas members get posted to?



Ottawa.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> Lots of companies, and other Government departments move people around, and they normally don't have subsidized housing? Does the RCMP have accommodations for the Mounties in all the little places they get posted too?



Yes, they do.  If you may have noticed, many of Canada's smaller RCMP Detachments are located in a building that is designed as one half Office, one half living quarters.


----------



## Neill McKay (28 Jul 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Lots of companies, and other Government departments move people around, and they normally don't have subsidized housing?



But, again, there are very few situations in which a company or OGD will *require* a person to move to a certain place, on a certain date, with very little possibility of saying "no".  "Take this new position in Alberta or you'll never see another promotion in this company" is a possibility, but "You will be the new Regional Director of Tire Recycling in Peace River starting 7 Sep 10 and if you don't like it you can take two weeks' notice" is extremely rare, and certainly not a routine part of anyone's career progression outside of the regular force.



> And as for the poor private with three kids who couldn't afford to live without a PMQ, really? It is called family planning. Don't have more kids than you can afford to look after.



Not a bad point at all.


----------



## acooper (28 Jul 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> And as for the poor private with three kids who couldn't afford to live without a PMQ, really? It is called family planning. Don't have more kids than you can afford to look after.



What you call "family planning" doesn't always fit with the morals or religious compulsions of a CF Member, however. Are you saying that someone shouldn't join the forces and serve their country simply because they want a large family? Essentially, I don't think you know enough about that private's situation to criticize him.

 I think it's entirely reasonable for at least SOME housing like the PMQs to be available. Not everyone wants them, or needs them. But some people need them, because of various situations. And some people want them, again, for varying reasons.

We're moving into one of the SHHO units in Ottawa, and looked at the PMQs. Without those options, we wouldn't be able to afford to live in Ottawa, even with one child, until my husband finishes his GeoTech course. From what I can tell, the SHHO and PMQs are priced a little under market value for Ottawa. I haven't fully read through this thread, but has anyone done an analysis of what it would cost the CF to keep a family separated and the CF member on IR vs building/maintaining some PMQs and/or SHHO units to house a percentage of the junior ranks expected to be posted to a given area?


----------



## Neill McKay (28 Jul 2010)

acooper said:
			
		

> What you call "family planning" doesn't always fit with the morals or religious compulsions of a CF Member, however. Are you saying that someone shouldn't join the forces and serve their country simply because they want a large family?



I would suggest that the real point is that a person -- whatever his or her occupation -- shouldn't have more kids than he or she can afford to feed and house.


----------



## acooper (28 Jul 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I would suggest that the real point is that a person -- whatever his or her occupation -- shouldn't have more kids than he or she can afford to feed and house.



That theory may work fine for you, and for me, as well, but it's simply not compatible with some people's way of life, religion, morals, etc. I've seen many families live well, with many kids, on a relatively small income.  What I think it comes down to is that the CF should be providing affordable housing for its members WHO NEED IT. Not for the higher ranks who make plenty to live on the economy, but for those of lower ranks who wish to serve their country, and whose families are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to support those wishes. 

This, of course, assumes the answer I'm expecting to my previous question - that it's more affordable to build and maintain PMQs than to keep all those members separated from their families on IR...


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jul 2010)

Pte pay: $32-47K.  Cpl pay: $53 - 57K.  Non-specialist.  Spec pay can get a Cpl up to $69K.  These are not starvation wages.

The CF provides a healthy compensation package.  The pension plan is one of the best in the country, with the employer paying roughly 2/3 of the cost.  Full medical and dental coverage, plus spousal and dependant coverage through the PSHCP at no cost to the member.  Adding more to the compensation package, in the form of subsidized housing, is unsustainable in this fiscal environment.  Adding a benefit that only some receive (such as subsidized housing)  unfairly penalizes those who do not take advantage of it.  Initiatives like PLD provide support.


There has been a deliberate effort to get government out of businesses where there is a local market to meet needs.  Housing, in most base locations, is one of those things.


----------



## Neill McKay (28 Jul 2010)

acooper said:
			
		

> That theory may work fine for you, and for me, as well, but it's simply not compatible with some people's way of life, religion, morals, etc.



Then let me say much the same thing as I said before, but turn it the other way: a person who chooses  - for any reason - to have a large family should find a job that will provide enough income to support that family.  If he or she can find such a job in the Forces, then that's great.  If not, keep looking.



> This, of course, assumes the answer I'm expecting to my previous question - that it's more affordable to build and maintain PMQs than to keep all those members separated from their families on IR...



That's a pretty important question, but also a complex one.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jul 2010)

I guess the dinosaur attitude of "the Army didn't issue you that family" never really goes away, does it?

Sure, we don't need PMQs. Must not need the MFRC, or the Canex either. I'm sure if you told a family of 5 (heck even 4) that instead of their $800 a month PMQ, they have to spend $1000 on a mortgage, plus utilities, plus property tax, they'd have some choice words thrown in your general direction. Oh, but they could live 45 minutes out of town and spend 80 bucks a week on gas even in a good mileage 4 cylinder car just to get back and forth to work.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jul 2010)

Full-time military compensation is extremely generous.  Pay scales are public information.  No one goes in blind.  If you can't make do on the CF's pay (and benefits), don't join.

It's really quite simple.


(And re: Canex: it costs more to run than it returns to communities.  Contract it out what's needed in remote areas and close the remainder.  Cheaper and better service, too).


----------



## Pusser (29 Jul 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess the dinosaur attitude of "the Army didn't issue you that family" never really goes away, does it?
> 
> Sure, we don't need PMQs. Must not need the MFRC, or the Canex either. I'm sure if you told a family of 5 (heck even 4) that instead of their $800 a month PMQ, they have to spend $1000 on a mortgage, plus utilities, plus property tax, they'd have some choice words thrown in your general direction. Oh, but they could live 45 minutes out of town and spend 80 bucks a week on gas even in a good mileage 4 cylinder car just to get back and forth to work.



At what point did the taxpayer become responsible for a CF member's lifestyle choices?  Does anyone dump on IBM because they no longer provide housing for their employees?  People need to grow up and learn to live within their means.  Although there are certain locations where PMQs should be provided, for the most part, we should be getting out of the housing business.  It's a huge money loser and what we spend in maintenance could be better spent on other programs (e.g. PLD).

The CF provides a generous compensation package by any standard and it is worth noting that if you compare it to those militaries that have "better" housing benefits, you will also find that their pay packages are considerably less than ours.  In short, they are completely dependent on their respective militaries to provide them with housing and when they retire, they are left in the cold.  Remember also that a higher salary (which comes with lesser housing benefits) also leads to a better pension in the end.  The lesson here is to understand how much money you make and find accommodation within your means.  As a final note, before you moan and drip about how much you have to spend on gas when you live way out in the boonies, consider selling the car and using the money you save to live closer and take the bus.


----------



## armyvern (29 Jul 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess the dinosaur attitude of "the Army didn't issue you that family" never really goes away, does it?
> 
> Sure, we don't need PMQs. Must not need the MFRC, or the Canex either. I'm sure if you told a family of 5 (heck even 4) that instead of their $800 a month PMQ, they have to spend $1000 on a mortgage, plus utilities, plus property tax, they'd have some choice words thrown in your general direction. Oh, but they could live 45 minutes out of town and spend 80 bucks a week on gas even in a good mileage 4 cylinder car just to get back and forth to work.



You forget though that MFRC's exist now exactly because of those "dinosaurs" who are serving. The same dinosaurs who are "the higher ups making so much money these days who can afford to live on the local economy" (according to acooper). The same dinosaurs who, a mere decade and a half ago when they were Ptes & Cpls, had to go to food banks to feed their families because, unlike now, they weren't even paid a livable wage. Those same guys & gals that stood before SCONDVA with their complaints about "not getting paid enough to support myself, let alone a family. Having to declare bankruptcy, going deeper into debt each month, etc." Those dinosaurs certainly didn't have the benefit of tax-free tours or left-overs from weekly pays to save up for downpayments for home purchases. Some of them went so far into debt during that time period that it is only in the past few years that they are able to save up for downpayments.

The ironic thing is ... those that are dinosaurs still living in Qs now are, a whole lot of the time, the same ones we all said to ourselves back then when they were Ptes/Cpls "we don't make a decent living wage ... STOP having kids if you can't afford them." Lots of them "chose" to keep having more kids anyway --- with an expectation that they could afford it because the CF is "obligated" to provide me with subsidized housing (says who!!??). Only just now (that the kids are moving out) able to afford to save up for a downpayment ... and some even still paying of credit cards they racked up back then.

No one should be having kids or more kids, regardless of employment, if they expect grease from their employer or the taxpayer to make that "affordable" for them; that's their lifestyle choice, but it shouldn't be dependant upon someone "else" who is NOT part of their family having to do anything to make it "affordable" for them. We already have incentives that cover higher cost of living areas etc; we call it PLD and people know what their wages are going to be when they volunteer to join this outfit.

Qs began being torn down in the mid-90s ... this is not new and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (4 Aug 2010)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> I understand that several applications have been sent up and none have been approved.


HEA has been approved in at least one APS 2010 case in Esquimalt.


----------



## GINge! (14 Aug 2010)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Hey folks:
> 
> Looking to start a discussion on HEA (100% from Core).



Heavy Reader - any follow up to this? Market out here took another stumble this summer. Looks like I will be asking the CM to keep me here for a 5th year to avoid losing on the house. At this point, I'd rather take the hit to the career than the wallet...hopefully the branch gives me that option. Two IR's out of 8 cost moves...not looking to do a third IR.


----------



## 4Feathers (14 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?
> 
> Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."
> 
> Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get.



As a professional in many major corps, not only do they pay for everything to move you, they buy your house for you if it does not sell. Not sure where you are getting your info from. Also, some other federal gov't departments buy your home from you if it does not sell and they have moved your employment. Our system with IRP is not as golden as you think it is, and just my opinion but I think it is pathetic  considering our unlimited liability clause and requirement to move when it suits them.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> ......... Also, some other federal gov't departments buy your home from you if it does not sell and they have moved your employment. Our system with IRP is not as golden as you think it is, and just my opinion but I think it is pathetic  considering our unlimited liability clause and requirement to move when it suits them.




I don't know where you got this information, and would be curious to see it in "Black and White", as Treasury Board makes the policies, not individual Gov't Depts.  I have never heard of any Gov't Dept buying a person's home if they could not sell it.


As for major Corporations doing this, I can agree that they will bend over backwards to attract their "high priced talent", but are unlikely to do so for their "common peons".  As an example, Chrysler may have done that for Lee Iaccoca, but surely didn't do it for someone working on the assembly line floor.


----------



## 4Feathers (15 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know where you got this information, and would be curious to see it in "Black and White", as Treasury Board makes the policies, not individual Gov't Depts.  I have never heard of any Gov't Dept buying a person's home if they could not sell it.
> 
> 
> As for major Corporations doing this, I can agree that they will bend over backwards to attract their "high priced talent", but are unlikely to do so for their "common peons".  As an example, Chrysler may have done that for Lee Iaccoca, but surely didn't do it for someone working on the assembly line floor.



RCMP and CSIS both offer to buy your home in their relocation benefits, not to mention at least half of the top 100 employers list for Canada. This is for the rank and file, not just the CEO's. http://www.canadastop100.com/national/


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> RCMP and CSIS both offer to buy your home in their relocation benefits, not to mention at least half of the top 100 employers list for Canada. This is for the rank and file, not just the CEO's. http://www.canadastop100.com/national/



I haven't read anywhere of any Gov't Dept buying your home if you can't sell it.  I did read: 





> extensive relocation support services (from a guaranteed home sale program to language training for spouses);


; and that does not say anything about the Gov't buying your home.  It says that they have a program similar to our IRP program.

I'll let an RCMP member on this site confirm or deny your claims about the RCMP purchasing a member's home when they are posted and can not sell.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Aug 2010)

RCMP relocation policy :

http://www.irp-pri.com/images/filesFor_about_otherInfo/RCMP_IRP_2009_10_FINAL_E.pdf

Policy does not contain any provisions for the GoC to buy your home if you cant sell.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Aug 2010)

RCMP uses the same company (Brookfield) to relocate.  They are subject to the same conditions under IRP.

The difference that exists in our National Police force is that you are not expected to move until your house is sold.  We had a local mountie stave off a posting by up to 2 years by purposedly being obstinate in dealing with would-be buyers and by overpricing her home.


----------



## Pusser (16 Aug 2010)

ALL Federal Government employee/member (i.e. CF, RCMP, Public Service) moves fall under the same Treasury Board policies.  In fact it's the same person at Treasury Board Secretariat who manages the program.  It's also a single program with a single contract for all three groups (i.e. the INTEGRATED Relocation Program).  Although there are some minor differences between how the program is administered among the three groups, the major benefits are identical.  The Federal Government does not buy mounties' or public servants' homes.


----------



## 4Feathers (16 Aug 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ALL Federal Government employee/member (i.e. CF, RCMP, Public Service) moves fall under the same Treasury Board policies.  In fact it's the same person at Treasury Board Secretariat who manages the program.  It's also a single program with a single contract for all three groups (i.e. the INTEGRATED Relocation Program).  Although there are some minor differences between how the program is administered among the three groups, the major benefits are identical.  The Federal Government does not buy mounties' or public servants' homes.nn



I work in the same building as CSIS, the policies are applied a lot differently, as they are with the RCMP. I would sure like the option of not moving until my house sold. If you have a spouse, two kids and a dog and are posted during the normal APS, I bet things go well, but if you just got back from Afghanistan, are a single parent, then posted in the dead of winter things are not always as simple. I suppose it always looks greener, but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree.  I will do a quick check and confirm how many thousand grievances we have in the system related to move benefits.


----------



## Pusser (16 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I work in the same building as CSIS, the policies are applied a lot differently, as they are with the RCMP. I would sure like the option of not moving until my house sold. If you have a spouse, two kids and a dog and are posted during the normal APS, I bet things go well, but if you just got back from Afghanistan, are a single parent, then posted in the dead of winter things are not always as simple. I suppose it always looks greener, but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree.  I will do a quick check and confirm how many thousand grievances we have in the system related to move benefits.



Don't confuse apples and oranges.  The move benefits available to the CF/RCMP/Public Service are pretty much the same.  But the timing of a posting and/or move (e.g. immediately upon return from deployment) is not an IRP issue.  It's a chain of command issue.

I've moved twice under IRP and found it to be quite superior to the way we used to do it.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree.



I have moved 4 times in the last 5 years including one OUTCAN, and I am now renting out my house in Ottawa while I rent here in Edmonton.  IRP is what it is, and moving frequently comes with the territory for some members of the forces (but evidently not all members).  I have yet to suffer any financial losses as a result of moving (less OUTCAN, where my wife's visa precluded her from working), and so IRP works just fine from my perspective.

If I wanted stability and predictability in my life, I would have stayed a civvie - but then of course I would have been in a job that added little in value to the country as a whole.  I traded up to a job that matters in the larger scheme of things, at the cost of stability and predictability.  From my perspective, I made the right choice.


----------



## Pusser (17 Aug 2010)

I'm with PPCLI Guy on that one.  Predictability = BORING!  Sure, there have been a few pain in the butt things over the years, but the number of really cool things I've done have made it well worth the cost.

As an aside, on the OUTCAN posting, didn't the Status of Forces Agreement allow your wife to work (SOFAs usually do)?  When we were OUTCAN, we were told that immigration officers will often put the standard stamp in the spouse's passport (which says he/she cannot work), but that it is a mistake and you just had to contact the right person to get it corrected.  My wife was able to work when we were overseas.


----------



## Black_and_Gold (23 Aug 2010)

I'm going through the same situation. Looking at losing about 70k from my purchase price. I'm single though and don't even have the option of IR. Submitted several memos and did a redress to try and get the posting cancelled. All denied. I'm amazed at the lack of support I'm getting from the military, a quote from one of my higher ups was "no one ordered you to buy a home".

At this point I'd gladly release to avoid the loss but I can't even do that because I'm on T-Cat. I didn't think you could get posted on T-Cat but I guess I'm wrong, my only hope now is that I get bumped up to P-Cat and medically released. FML.


----------



## Skoubi (23 Aug 2010)

how about keep your home and rent it?


----------



## 4Feathers (24 Aug 2010)

My quick staff check reveals that in 2009 there were over 700 new grievances related to move benefits that made it to the final authority. That represents 10% of all grievances submitted. Not sure how many relate directly to HEA, but it sure is significant and I would suggest indicative of a problem with our relocation system.


----------



## Maritimegal (31 Aug 2010)

well it looks like grievances are making their way and the grievance board is recomending a review of the policy:

Case #: 2010-015

Case Summary
Date: 6/30/2010

The grievor was posted after only one year of what he had expected to be a three-year posting. During that one year, the local housing market declined approximately 14% in general. The grievor's principal residence was eventually sold at a loss of approximately 12% or $44,000.

After being reimbursed the maximum $15,000 in home equity assistance (HEA) available from core funding under the CF Integrated Relocation Programme (CF IRP), the grievor requested reimbursement of the additional equity loss of $29,000 that he had suffered. His request was denied on the basis that his situation did not fall within the CF IRP definition for a "depressed market" (that being a market decline of 20% or more as confirmed by the Treasury Board).

There was no initial authority (IA) decision on file because the grievor had denied an IA request for additional response time.

The Board found that the CF IRP policy had been applied correctly to the grievor's circumstances and recommended that the Final Authority (FA) deny the grievance.

Notwithstanding, the Board also had concerns about the adequacy of the policy and the lack of a mechanism to address exceptional cases as appeared to be present with this grievor. The Board found that the CF should not oblige a member to move after just one year in a posting and simply ignore the fact that the member has suffered a loss of $29,000 in home equity as a consequence of the posting. The Board found the 20% market decline threshold required to trigger the definition of a "depressed market" to be quite restrictive and an odd construct, noting that had the market in the area declined by 20% rather than 14%, the grievor would presumably have been compensated for his entire loss of $44,000 rather than the $15,000 he received.

The Board recommended that the FA direct a review of the provisions of the CF IRP regarding HEA with a view to re-examining the 20% threshold needed to trigger a "depressed market" and to consider providing the authority to the Chief of the Defence Staff to reimburse equity losses based upon a determination of "undue hardship".

CDS Decision

CDS Decision Pending


----------



## Pusser (31 Aug 2010)

Although the CDS can order a review of the policy, he cannot actually grant the redress the grievor is asking for (i.e. reimburse him the additional $29K).  That authority lies solely with Treasury Board.

On another note, it's interesting that the griever denied a request for an extension by the IA.  This is seldom helpful.  The IA can often provide some helpful insight and recommendations on a grievance file.  Unfortunately, an IA may sometimes need more time than the 60 days allowed in order to staff the file properly.  If the IA asks for an extension, it is usually worth your while to grant it.  If you don't, then the file is simply closed and forwarded, as is, to the Grievance Board - without comment.  Then, the Grievance Board has to start almost from scratch and WITHOUT a time limit (i.e. denying an extension does NOT speed up the process).  Furthermore, the Grievance Board will often send the file to a subject matter expert, which coincidentally is often the IA (although to a different desk), for comment.  My advice (as someone who once granted an extension and then won a grievance) is that it is better to work with the system and grant them the leeway that they are asking for.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2010)

[ tangent ]
The problem that I encourntered was an IA who ignored the first 60 days, and when I contacted the individual responsible for an update (2 weeks after the 60 days) he requested and I granted a 45 day extension.  At that point, he had still done virtually no work on the file.

I found that forwarding our email chain (including his admissions of not working in the first 60 days and still not being ready, some 119 days after receipt of the file) to his supervisor (cc'ing him), and requesting resolution within 2 weeks, to be a very effective method to have my concern addressed.
[ /tangent ]


The grievance posted does not meet the NDA requirements to be a grievance, as it's appealing regulations made by TB - and the NDA states:



> (2) There is no right to grieve in respect of
> (a) a decision of a court martial or the Court Martial Appeal Court;
> (b) a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act; or
> (c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.


----------



## Pusser (31 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> [ tangent ]
> The problem that I encourntered was an IA who ignored the first 60 days, and when I contacted the individual responsible for an update (2 weeks after the 60 days) he requested and I granted a 45 day extension.  At that point, he had still done virtually no work on the file.
> 
> I found that forwarding our email chain (including his admissions of not working in the first 60 days and still not being ready, some 119 days after receipt of the file) to his supervisor (cc'ing him), and requesting resolution within 2 weeks, to be a very effective method to have my concern addressed.
> [ /tangent ]



Under those particular circumstances, I fully agree with your course of action.


----------



## captloadie (1 Sep 2010)

DP - The Grievance board in several cases posted on the site this year has said that 
_c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations._
must have an explicit exclusion of something to make it non grievable. Reading the case summaries, many IA's have used this as an excuse not to hear a grievance, and it looks like the Board is now consistently saying there must be a specific exemption.


----------



## heavy reader (16 Sep 2010)

Hi folks:

Thank you all for your insights and experiences with the HEA policy.  Funny thing how these huge problems/inconsistencies don't attract the attention they deserve until they hit you or your peers/staff.

We're relocated now and learning to live with the financial impacts of the HEA loss ($88K - $15 K covered by IRP).  The redress is currently 65 days at the IA.

The move sucked (split load, leaky truck, damaged vehicle) but that's another thread.  Hey what else could go wrong?

UBIQUE!


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> DP - The Grievance board in several cases posted on the site this year has said that
> _c) a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations._
> must have an explicit exclusion of something to make it non grievable. Reading the case summaries, many IA's have used this as an excuse not to hear a grievance, and it looks like the Board is now consistently saying there must be a specific exemption.



Apologies for missing your post two weeks ago.

The prolem with cost moves is that the rules are set by TB, making them "a decision of a board, commission, court or tribunal established other than under this Act;" .

Fighting QR&Os or other GiC items, on the other hand, is fair game unless prescribed.


----------



## going_broke (28 Sep 2010)

I am wondering, for all those who submitted grievances related to equity loss, what was exactly the matter grieved? Seems to me there are two possible ways to request 100% HEA:

  a.  Try proving that the market in particular location declined by more than 20%, and request 100% HEA
  b.  Request 100% HEA based on "exceptional circumstances" (CFIRP 2009, para 2.1.01)

In both cases the request has to go to Treasury Board - but, after talking to 1-800-GRIEVOR advisor (it was a Maj from DGCFGA), was told that a decision of a TB cannot be grieved.  That does not seem quite right to me, since the CFGB in case 2010-001 stated: 

"A number of cases have been referred to the Board in which the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), acting as the Initial Authority, dismissed grievances on the grounds that the Compensation and Benefit Instructions (CBI) are Treasury Board (TB) regulations and that, consequently, a CF member could not dispute them through a grievance, in accordance with Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&O) 7.01(1) – Right to Grieve. This paragraph reiterates subsections 29(1) and 29(2) of the National Defense Act (NDA), which stipulate that “there is no right to grieve in respect of … a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.”

The Board firstly pointed out that TB regulations are not regulations made by the Governor in Council. In addition, the Board indicated that the DGCB’s interpretation of QR&O 7.01(1) is erroneous. This subsection does not prevent CF members from filing grievances against matters governed by regulations made by the Governor in Council. Rather, it enables the Governor in Council to make regulations excluding specific matters or cases from the grievance process. There is no regulation made by the Governor in Council that excludes matters or cases governed by the CBI on the grievance process"

I sent an e-mail to treasury board asking if Edmonton has fallen yet into a category of depressed markets, and, after bouncing around, reply came from Director Canadian Forces Relocation Program: "Treasury Board has stated that there are no depressed markets in Canada".  Unless TB monitors housing market in every single community that CF members are posted, how can they state that?  If TB simply is guarding the public purse - well, CF Grievance Board in one of their earlier cases stated that fiscal considerations cannot be a reason for denying benefits, but again, CFGB and CDS have no jurisdiction over TB decisions and actions.  

Seems that the only way 100% HEA grievance could be upheld is by CDS referring the grievance to the litigation and compensations office, or whatever is that organizations that settles pain and suffering claims...


----------



## heavy reader (30 Sep 2010)

You seem to have reached the same conclusions as I did, however when I contacted Treasury Board and identified myself as a soldier, the advised me to talk to my union rep. :nod:

As for the grievances, the CDS cannot force TBS to pay out, but he does need to know what is going on with his troops.  That is one reason to send the grievance to the CDS.  Also, if there is a systemic problem, several redresses on the same issue will cross his desk and perhaps raise a flag.  Third, ombudsman will not consider reviewing your case until you have exhausted the CF Redress process (confirmed today by telephone).

So, after you get an answer back from the CDS, you could send a letter to your MP (could do that anytime however), and you can begin planning for litigation at the federal level.  Not sure if a class action is legal with troops, hopefully someone in the CoC will step up to the plate on this one.  Not sure about the finances of others who were affected by this issue, but I can't even afford to get my furnace fixed or buy winter tires :crybaby: - how the hell am I supposed to hire a lawyer for federal court?

As for your initial question - What was being grieved?  The fact that TBS has a blanket policy in place and is not honoring the 100% HEA from core even if you meet all the requirements set out in the policy.  My file never went to TBS, DCBA just applied the blanket policy, then returned the redress without further action.  
Wonder which of these guys have a "support our troops" magnet on their vehicle.

My advice, don't quit...ever.


----------



## heavy reader (16 Oct 2010)

Please check out the poll for those who have applied for 100% HEA out of core.  The poll is anonymous, but could provide some insight on how big this problem is.  Thanks again everyone.


----------



## Maritimegal (17 Oct 2010)

Heavy Reader,

Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?


----------



## Task (17 Oct 2010)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> Heavy Reader,
> 
> Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?



Top of the page


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2010)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> Heavy Reader,
> 
> Where is the poll? Could you provide a link?



It is at the top of this topic/page..............Look up.


----------



## soontoretire (20 Oct 2010)

"Part of me also has little sympathy for people who are taking 50-100k losses on a 400-500+ K home. That probably means that they bought a house they really couldn't afford in the first place. Did they need 4 bedrooms, granite countertops, swimming pools in the best parts of town, expecting to make big money on resale?"


Ii am one to respect people's opinion but the comment above left me with a bad taste.  If this guy was in lost of near $100,000 he would be shaking in his pants.  Don't make comment that you can't support or when you don't know what you are talking about.  I paid a fortune for my home and I have no granite countertops or swimming pools or 4 bedrooms for that matters and not even a jucuzzi tub!  So until you walk in someone's else shoes for a day...I am bitting my tongue at what I would love to say to this guy...


----------



## TimBit (21 Oct 2010)

> Ii am one to respect people's opinion but the comment above left me with a bad taste.  If this guy was in lost of near $100,000 he would be shaking in his pants.  Don't make comment that you can't support or when you don't know what you are talking about.  I paid a fortune for my home and I have no granite countertops or swimming pools or 4 bedrooms for that matters and not even a jucuzzi tub!  So until you walk in someone's else shoes for a day...I am bitting my tongue at what I would love to say to this guy...



Case in point, I don`t know how a cpl in Cold Lake on one salary could afford much more than a mobile home. Some sell for 120-150 thousand plus. You need close to 200K to get in a detached house, and we`re talking basic stuff here! Not everyone is lucky enough to be posted in a cheap area where you can get decent QoL for your family at a reasonable price.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

Assume a $200K house.  Cpl (no spec pay) Basic is $4476 per month, or $53712 per year.  Assume a 6% fixed rate mortgage, with 5% downpayment.

Therefore:  Mortgage amount = $200K*95%*1.0275 (CMHC premium) = $195K

On a twenty five year amortization, the semi-monthly payment on that $195K mortgage would be $623.81, or 27.8% of income, well within the recommended parameters.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2010)

From the little exposure I have seen in house prices (mainly through MJPs moves), $200K isn't going to buy much these days that PMQ's wouldn't supply. (except maybe in Winnipeg and a few others).

my  :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> From the little exposure I have seen in house prices (mainly through MJPs moves), $200K isn't going to buy much these days that PMQ's wouldn't supply. (except maybe in Winnipeg and a few others).
> 
> my  :2c:



Yes, but it gets you into the marketplace, and building some equity.  My first purchase (a sub-$100K condo) provided the funds to act as a downpayment on my current house.  Paying PMQ rent gives you nothing at the end.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2010)

Granted, as long as you are going to be located in the general area long enough to flip through the various levels...


----------



## TimBit (21 Oct 2010)

> Yes, but it gets you into the marketplace, and building some equity.  My first purchase (a sub-$100K condo) provided the funds to act as a downpayment on my current house.  Paying PMQ rent gives you nothing at the end.



Granted as well, that is why I am living in a small but owned condo right now. THAT being said, I would rather waste 200$ a month living in a Q (and I am generous here) than living in a small, inadequate, ugly house that my family would hate with a passion. It is my duty to them. Wouldn't you do the same? Now I am just saying that in some areas it is indeed difficult to find an ok house within ok prices. 

Oh and also, the calculations you supplied would not actually work based on this calculator:

http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/iTools-iOutils/Mortgagequalifier-eng.aspx

Remember that you must account for the heating and taxes in the GDS calculation, which must not exceed 32%. At 27.8%, ut is highly likely that heating and taxes will send you over 32%. I am also seeing there a mortgage payment of 1249 a month, well above what you put.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2010)

Note that my payment was semi-monthly, so we're in the same ballpark.

And yes, it would be tight as a Cpl IPC 0.  But my point was that it is possible, if difficult.  Add a second income (part-time at $10/ hour) and you've got another $10K or so per year.


----------



## acooper (21 Oct 2010)

Ahh, but if you're assuming someone is there for a 2nd income, there may well be kids too, no?  It's easy to find a situation where it's not worth it to have the 2nd parent work outside the home, because of the costs associated (gas, 2nd car/public transport, etc). And military wives can have a hard time maintaining a career, if their husbands get posted somewhere else every couple of years. 

And in today's economic climate, for a new member, they may be coming into the CF with some significant debt accumulated. It's part of why my DH joined up - we couldn't find him a steady job in Windsor. While our debt isn't overwhelming, it IS significant. Much of it is still working on paying off his schooling costs from a decade ago...

In the end, I guess I more agree with TimBit, than you, dapaterson - it is far likelier to end up over that 32% mark, at least at Cpl pay...


----------



## TimBit (21 Oct 2010)

Sorry, I had missed the semi-monthly. I agree with you, it is feasible. But it is tight. And in some areas of the country, that tightness will get you a sad worn-down trailer home while in others it will get you a beautiful two storey house with huge backyard.... hence I do feel a bit for those folks who bought expensive homes in Edmonton and are now feeling the pinch...

Now it's part of the service, so, we have to live with it. But that doesn't mean we have to like it.


----------



## heavy reader (21 Oct 2010)

Ah, there's the kicker.  "Its part of the service, so we have to live with it".  The HEA loss is not something we have to deal with as a side effect of being in the military.

Our predecessors fought hard to get the entitlement of 100% HEA out of Core as a relocation benefit due to the unique characteristics of military service (see SCONDVA).  This is our policy, in place to offset these catastrophic losses of tens of thousands of dollars. The fight for the policy has already been fought and won, however there is no intent to honor it.  Treasury Board Secretariat refuses to acknowledge that there are any DEPRESSED MARKETS in Canada, even when provided with the proof.   (We demonstrated well over 20% decrease in town's home sales between purchase and sale time).

I was once one of those young gunners who moved out of the PMQs, got into the housing market, lived in a hovel.  Had a few kids and got bigger houses as I moved.  Clipped coupons and cut my own hair.  Did all my own repairs and drove a piece of crap to save for the family.  We never bought above our means, we were on the road to security, saving where we could and nothing lavish. In the last posting to Edmonton (2007) there were very few housing choices available (lineups with bidders in their cars).  We lucked out and got a house way out in the sticks with little more than a Husky and a liquor store in the town.  Cost us everything, but we had equity from all those years of scrooging.

Now, due to this all of the equity we carefully built up, gone.  Our family savings, gone.  Having to beg the "support agencies", family and friends to russel up enough for a down payment for the next posting (plus paying more CMHC as we did not have enough for the downpayment.  Plus, the added enjoyment of paying the interest on money we borrowed to pay back the bank for the old mortgage.  

Where does that leave my family?  In two years when my mortgage comes up for renewal, my debt ratio will be so high that I will not be mortgageable. We cannot rent due to our family size. After 23 years service, this lack of constitution behind our policy will leave me broke and my family homeless.  Is this the thanks I deserve for years of service.  How about the young guy who is in the same situation and doesn't have any equity.  He'll get the same advise that SISIP gave me - declare bankruptcy.  Hey, wait a minute, how's that going to help me get a house next posting?  I didn't bail on any of my previous loans, or my other responsibilities.  Never reneged on a student loan, or declared bankruptcy.  I've dealt with my responsibilities without passing them off to the little guy.  I'm carrying the non-reimbursed portion of HEA loss on my shoulders at $1000/month (interest charges) until this is resolved. Shouldn't our Treasury Board have the same level responsibility?  After all, they promised it to us all.

Perhaps the message we are getting is that our* representatives will bail out a car company, but they  won't bail out a soldier, even when promised* (in writing).


----------



## TimBit (22 Oct 2010)

Wow. That's a horrible story. Good luck. As a taxpayer, I hope we help you out in the end.


----------



## captloadie (5 Nov 2010)

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-012.html

The link above is to a grievance to the current HEA policy. I think the CDS decision on this will be very interesting. Although it doesn't look like the grievor will satisfied with the response, the follow on recomendations may fix the current issue members are having with the HEA. Or it may close the door on the argument for the foreseable future. Hopefully it won't take three years for a decision.


----------



## going_broke (8 Nov 2010)

Read both the case summaries (2010-012 and 2010-015).  Looks like any way you try to get 100% HEA, the TBS has hatches down, and grievances are denied.  Yeah, nice that the Board is recommending the policy review , but I remember reading a different grievance from 5 years ago with a policy review recommendation, and the policy still has not been reviewed.  So... 3 years for CDS to render a decision, then 10 years for policy review...

Has anyone tried submitting a request for 100% HEA based on "exceptional expenses" (also requires TBS approval) rather than proving a depressed market?


----------



## Maritimegal (12 Nov 2010)

People are not receiving the outcomes they are hoping from the grievance board, but keep up the fight and don't quit. Once all military channels are exhausted, there are other ways to have your voices heard. Don't give up!


----------



## going_broke (16 Nov 2010)

So the Ombudsman was visiting our base.  After his presentation I had an opportunity to chat with his "G3 Ops" person about the 100% HEA.
Apparently, Ombudsman's office so far has only 3 complaints about the equity loss and compensation (although they expect more to come).  I was told 3 cases are not enough to push for a policy change (and privatly the person expressed opinion that with the current fiscal situation it is likely that rules would be tightened, not relaxed).  Therefore, the Treasury Board's position is that the "Home Departments" should deal with exceptional cases on case-by-case basis.
But here's the catch - CDS does not have an authority to award monetary compensation, even when policy is considered to be unfair, as CFGB findings to two grievances (2010-012 and 2010-015) state.  The Ombudsman's office in March 2010 submitted a report on deficiencies of the grievance system to the Minister (you can read more on that here http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mr-sm/nr-cp/2010/1805-eng.asp), where it recommended granting such authority to CDS.

The bottom line as I see it - the Treasury Board is not going to change the HEA policy, and CF right now has no power to compensate for equity loss beyond the 15,000.  I hope that the Minister's office does not take forever to grant powers to CDS; in the meantime I will keep stealing colleagues' lunches from the fridge  :-\


----------



## Maritimegal (29 Nov 2010)

Heavy Reader: You should add an option for those whom have their homes listed, have not yet sold, but plan to apply for HEA. I know of at least 3 families presently in that situation.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Nov 2010)

Email just started floating around the DWAN about this. Gist of it said the Army didn't make you buy a house. They didn't add that they put people in the position to need a house when they move to an area with limited PMQ or overpriced rental options.


----------



## going_broke (30 Nov 2010)

A new grievance posted on CFGB site, http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-043.html

Read the whole thing yourself, but this particular line (referring to Edmonton, of course) just made me shake my head and repeat WTF several times...

"""There was no initial authority (IA) decision as the grievor denied the IA's request for an extension of time. However, at the Board's request, the staff of the DCBA provided additional information regarding the matter. The DCBA staff advised that TBS would not have reviewed the grievor's file as TBS had already considered the greater metropolitan area in which the grievor's community was located, determined that it was not a depressed market area, and advised the DCBA not to send any further files from that metropolitan area."""


----------



## Occam (30 Nov 2010)

going_broke said:
			
		

> A new grievance posted on CFGB site, http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-043.html
> 
> Read the whole thing yourself, but this particular line (referring to Edmonton, of course) just made me shake my head and repeat WTF several times...
> 
> """There was no initial authority (IA) decision as the grievor denied the IA's request for an extension of time. However, at the Board's request, the staff of the DCBA provided additional information regarding the matter. The DCBA staff advised that TBS would not have reviewed the grievor's file as TBS had already considered the greater metropolitan area in which the grievor's community was located, determined that it was not a depressed market area, and advised the DCBA not to send any further files from that metropolitan area."""



TBS' new motto:  "Any evidence which does not support our conclusions must be considered to be in error and discarded".

What I don't understand is this:  The press went into a tizzy when a dozen MAATS students got dinged for a $2200 repayment of a claim overpayment (which was DND's fault), and the Ombudsman made a stink about it and got them their money (+ interest) back.  This is $50,000 we're talking about in the case of the HEA policy and the posted grievance.  One would think the press would have a field day with that..."TBS not following their own rules".


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Nov 2010)

So, that email I was talking I received again. It was sent to various formation CWOs, but if you didn't get it, PM me for the full text. Here is the summary (names and emails removed), emphasis added as shown in the email text:



> To summarize the reply from DGCB:
> 
> -  The Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy contained in CFIRP is a* two-tiered *approach to compensating CF members when they lose money on the sale of their home.  TB has agreed to take on *some but not all of this risk.*  The policy reimburses 80% of a member's loss up to a maximum of $15,000 from the core envelope. The numbers are very specific leaving no room for the exercise of Ministerial authority. The policy also allows members to use all the remaining funds in their customized and personalized envelopes if their loss exceeds the $15,000 cap.  The *second tier *of the policy is when TBS identifies a market as "depressed".  As a guideline the TBS looks for a 20% drop in market values for the market as a whole. When this occurs, TBS may authorize the reimbursement of up to 100% of the loss. *At the moment there are no markets in Canada that have been declared depressed markets by TBS.*
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (1 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So, that email I was talking I received again. It was sent to various formation CWOs, but if you didn't get it, PM me for the full text. Here is the summary (names and emails removed), emphasis added as shown in the email text:



There is a bit in that email (not included in your exerpt) that goes to the basis of fair market value having been paid for those homes. IIRC, there's also a comment or two about pers paying too much for houses due to bidding wars etc and a leaning towards those pers having paid too much for their homes (way above the home's actual value) - a loss that TB is not obligated to assume for them. That paying vastly inflated proces above a home's actual value do not a "depressed market" make when those homes start selling lower and more in line with their actual worth/value.

Even under previous programs where we had "guaranteed home sale" etc, this was based on "fair market value" of the home and not what you or I, or anyone else, paid for our home. This was brought up at the beginning of the thread.

"Fair market value" / actual worth is an important feature because - if it weren't included in the basis for re-imbursement then there's nothing stopping any single one of us from walking up to a home sale and saying "sold to me for 1 million dollars" and expecting the TB to cover our losses when we sell it for it's actual value (say 250k) next year when we are posted out again.

I also guarantee you that if losses covered weren't inclusive of the caveat that the buyer is expected to pay 'fair market value' (& that if he pays an inflated price then HE assumes the risk for that, not TB) - then we'd have a bunch of millionaire troops out there "paying their million" and expecting 100% HEA to cover their loss when they sell it to the next guy. We could make all of us rich this way --- just keep cycling these homes through mil families at ever growing grossly-inflated prices over & over ... and expecting 100%HEA (ie: the Canadian taxpayer) to pay us out any losses. 

It's just not going to happen - and that's the problem with everyone's theory that no matter WHAT we pay for a home, it's TB's job to cover our losses to 100%. I'm of the theory that if I pay 40% over the value of the home because I got in a bidding war with someone - that's my choice --- not TBs ... and that's a risk I assumed, not TB.


----------



## Pusser (1 Dec 2010)

Well said ArmyVern.   :nod:


----------



## Maritimegal (1 Dec 2010)

Some excerpts from a recent grievance posted:

"With his submission, the grievor included evidence that the real estate market in his community of over 750 homes had declined by approximately 30 percent and that there were specific reasons for the decline. In particular, the grievor's community was comprised of manufactured housing on leased land, which had been in great demand at the time the grievor purchased his home; however, the inventory in the area had caught up with the market around the time of his sale and prices had adjusted downwards accordingly"

"The DCBA staff advised that TBS would not have reviewed the grievor's file as TBS had already considered the greater metropolitan area in which the grievor's community was located, determined that it was not a depressed market area, and advised the DCBA not to send any further files from that metropolitan area."


This is ridiculous. The IRP manual states that you need to prove the "community" in which you reside is depressed 20%, not the "metropolitan area" as TBS states. The grievor provided evidence. Unreal. 

Keep pressing. Don't give up.  Mahatma Gandhiirst says it best, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win"


----------



## GINge! (1 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Email just started floating around the DWAN about this. Gist of it said the Army didn't make you buy a house.



Yes, that is the response I got from DCBA "mbr made a personal decision to buy a house"

What they failed to address was that 'personal decision' was based on written comms from IRP stating my penalties would be 100% covered (not HEAP, a different issue). IRP 's answer was "Sorry we made that mistake, but we are not financially liable for providing wrong advice". My loss was 'only' $10k which I had creph negociate down to $5k...still, $5k is a year of fun money for us.


----------



## heavy reader (5 Jan 2011)

Update:

Just got my Access to Information back from Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).  The request was for "Policy, policy clarification, application of rules, guidance, restrictions, limitations or eligibility concerning relocation benefits for Canadian Forces - specifically referring to 100% Home Equity from Core Envelope for the period of 2006-2010. S.5.8.2.13 of CF IRP policy".

TBS amended the request in their response to read: "Policy, Policy clarification, application of rules, guidance, restrictions, limitations of eligibility concerning relocation benefits from Core Envelope for the period 2005-2010. 5.8.2.13 CF IRP Policy".

TBS Response: "Please be advised that after a thorough search through our files, no records related to your request exist within Treasury Board Secretariat".

This indicates to me that there has been no direction given to DCBA or other relocation decision making authority about the eligibility of those applying for 100% HEA out of core. 

Implying that the requests are not being forwarded to TBS (in accordance with policy).  This is the exact same situation as another soldier whose grievance was mentioned earlier (http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-043.html).  

As for the status of my grievance, it was misplaced, but due to the quick actions of a young OCdt, was found and put back on track.  As for the Treasury Board, after seeking information on how to proceed, they instructed me to discuss the issue with my union rep.  Wow.  I wasn't aware that the CF was unionized.  Something new every day I suppose.

Have a happy new year.  Don't give up, ever.

Ubique!


----------



## captloadie (5 Jan 2011)

Maritimegal said:
			
		

> Heavy Reader: You should add an option for those whom have their homes listed, have not yet sold, but plan to apply for HEA. I know of at least 3 families presently in that situation.



These families should be made aware of this issue before they sell. If it were me, I wouldn't be gambling my financial future on the hopes the policy changes. Hard decisions might have to be made, like going IR, or renting at the new location instead of buying.


----------



## going_broke (31 Jan 2011)

Finally sold the house, for $76 loss (after 9 months on the market).  And still was glad, since TDRA $$ just run out 2 weeks ago.  Now let's the real HEA dance begin.


----------



## acooper (31 Jan 2011)

We just sold, although still pending an inspection, for 17.5k less than appraised, 12.5k less than asking price. We'd been on the market for almost 6 months, in Windsor. We paid 1.5k more than the current appraisal for the place, but put in probably 20-30k of work (all before my husband CT'd to RegF). We'll probably be going for 100% HEA - if there's a market in Canada that's depressed, it would be Windsor...


----------



## heavy reader (31 Jan 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> These families should be made aware of this issue before they sell. If it were me, I wouldn't be gambling my financial future on the hopes the policy changes. Hard decisions might have to be made, like going IR, or renting at the new location instead of buying.



It's not a hope that the policy will be changed, its a hope that the policy will be adhered to.  Again, I stress that the battle to have 100% HEA as an entitlement was already fought and won.  The policy is written, now the only issue remaining is to honor the policy for those who need it to put food on the table.  Renting at the new location will not resolve the $70,000+ deficit that some of these soldiers and their families are facing.

How many more troops have to loose a year or more's wages until this is addressed?

Don't forget that for each person affected, there's a family attached that has to suck up kraft dinner and squabbles over "can we afford groceries this week" until it gets resolved.

Congrats to those of you who just sold your house.  Don't forget that the bank's coing to come calling for the difference between your outstanding mortgage and your selling price before porting your mortgage.  Then you get the joy of, yup, paying more CMHC fees because you no longer have 5% down (if they will give you a mortgage).  And yes, I know the CMHC fees are covered, but they are a taxable expense.  SO in my case, the 12k CMHC fees will cost me an extra 6 grand at tax time.  Oh, thats on top of the approx $1000/month interest for carrying forward the debt from the loss.  Just keeps getting better and better.

Now that my monthly whining is done, if anyone needs some help, drop me a line.  You are in for one bumpy ride.


----------



## acooper (31 Jan 2011)

Heavy - thankfully, we're not going to be that upside down on our mortgage - only about $300 dollars, I think. And my parents, thankfully, are covering the gap (about $2k total of outstanding house-related debt) until some of our HEA can kick in, or we can afford to repay them. I wouldn't have been able to sell the house at this price otherwise. We've decided to rent for now, until we can build a nest-egg up again, and know that we'll be someplace for a length of time. My husband may well be posted out of Ottawa when he's done his QL5A in 2012, so we don't want to buy there right now.  SHHO will do fine for the time being.

Our intent is to go for 100% HEA, of course - we are selling for quite a bit less than what we've put into the place. I know we may not get it. But I'd rather not get my money out of this place than end up divorced...


----------



## captloadie (1 Feb 2011)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> It's not a hope that the policy will be changed, its a hope that the policy will be adhered to.  Again, I stress that the battle to have 100% HEA as an entitlement was already fought and won.  The policy is written, now the only issue remaining is to honor the policy for those who need it to put food on the table.  Renting at the new location will not resolve the $70,000+ deficit that some of these soldiers and their families are facing.


How is the policy not being adhered to? The policy doesn't say it guarantees 100% reimbursement for all losses regardless of cause. You've quoted the important part of the policy numerous times - it has to be considered a depressed market by the Treasury Board. The policy you say the CF fought long and hard to get implemented has a great big loophole, in that it allows the TB to have final say on an issue it isn't an expert in. If they say it isn't a depressed market, that is the final word. So policy is being followed. If you are looking to blame anybody, you should be looking at the CREA, who keeps blowing sunshine up the public's a** about how great the real estate market is. The TB, not being the  experts, go to organizations who are SMEs to get their data, and the CREA is likely at the top of the list. 

I would like to know how many CF families are affected by this decision. How many are facing 10s of thousands in losses, because they sold* before members were made aware  * that currently 100% HEA was not being granted. I do feel for those that sold in 2008 and early 2009 before this issue really bubbled up. Since then, members should have been aware that before selling, or buying, they had to consider they would not get HEA.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> it allows the TB to have final say on an issue it isn't an expert in.



And how many folks at TBS do you know?  How many in Comp and Benefits?  Do you know their backgrounds?

For example:

http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/eng/REcn%3dBelovich%5c%2c%20David%2cou%3dSNCPAC-GRSAAPC%2cou%3dSCM-GRS%2cou%3dCLRS-SRRT%2cou%3dOCHRO-BDPRH%2cou%3dTBS-SCT%2co%3dGC%2cc%3dCA

at TBS looks suspiciously like someone listed at

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13537


----------



## captloadie (1 Feb 2011)

I don't get your point. I didn't say they weren't competent, or didn't know the job they are supposed to be doing, I said they weren't experts in the real estate field. And if he was a Colonel up until recently, I again ask, what is his background in evaluating the economic trends of the area we want to be deemed as depressed markets?

And this isn't a reflection on the good Mr Belovich, but I know of several military members who were less than competent in uniform who managed to get very nice civil service jobs that one might question whether they were qualified for.


----------



## QM (2 Feb 2011)

I agree that a member should not be out of pocket for a move imposed on them by the CF. Just because we sign on the dotted line does not mean the government has a blank cheque to abuse us. Yes there are members who buy houses out of their league (quite a few of my fellow Officers are the worst offenders) and for those folk, well.....you could always have bough a cheaper house in a cheaper neighbourhood and sent your kids to a more.....diversified school instead of that ritzy one in St. Albert or The Glebe (but I understand and support your desire to have the best for your family so no judgement here). But..... they are taking a gamble on a big housing loss by buying in a big neighbourhood.

Its wholly unfair though, for the soldier who has to get in over his head simply to have a roof over his family's head, to lose four figures on a move. That soldier should not be punished for being ordered to a new posting. The challenge though, is how to deal with it? We all know that any policy put in place to alleviate the legitimate pain of that small percentage of cases that need help - will quickly become an entitlement that every greedy member wants access to. Look at IR as the perfect example - a planned one-year benefit to allow you to deal with a temporary major family circumstance, that quickly became the default setting on posting. Yes it kept some people in the CF who would otherwise have quit......but holy abuse Batman!!!

This is why there are such stringent rules imposed by T-Board. To ensure that ONLY those who truly need help, get help (ie. the Windsor family). But what do we do when the overall Canadian housing bubble bursts? The Economist magazine says Canada has the most inflated housing market in the Western world!!! What happens when the market drops by 20% or more and all Canadians are losing money?? Do CF members get reimbursed while civilians lose their shirts? My answer.....yes, they had better.  Because the average civilian, as hard as some of them have it, has a choice to move, and usually moves to better their circumstance.  Military personnel are moved because the system has determined that they can better serve their country in a different location. That is a unique circumstance that requires a unique set of regulations to administer those pers who are working on behalf of Canadians at the pleasure of the government.

But I'm not sure how it would play in the Globe and Mail if CF members who lose on housing get massive payouts while auto plants shut down in Windsor and Oshawa etc, and civilian Canadians lose their shirts. It may be a "benefit too far". But, the strict application of reasonable and considered guidelines will ensure we are paying out to the right people.

However I think the T-Board's view is that the member could always cut back on middle-class niceties that are, after all, not an entitlement, and would thus be quite hesitant to reimburse us for losses.

FWIW, how the market affected me:  I'm a debt-free LCol who dumped his home equity into GIC's and has been renting for the past 3 years, because of volatility in the Alberta housing market and in anticipation of a drop in housing prices. I was hoping to avoid the six figure losses some of my friends have incurred (although others have profited 6 figures - all depends on timing). In retrospect I would likely have broken even over the past 2 years in Edmonton, as the market is roughly where it was when I came here. I'm probably out of pocket $4K  - $7K of "lost" capital growth had I been paying a mortgage and sold at zero profit/zero loss (made some cash on the GIC's, have lower rental cost than ownership costs since I don't pay taxes or utilities or furnace repair etc). I am happy with my gamble, and I don't have to fret over a home-sale when I get posted out. But if a guy with my salary is scared of the housing market, I really feel for NCMs with a bigger family or a wife who doesn't work. Ugly times, so have sympathy for the ones who are losing their shirts, as its not always their fault.


----------



## heavy reader (2 Feb 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> How is the policy not being adhered to? The policy doesn't say it guarantees 100% reimbursement for all losses regardless of cause. You've quoted the important part of the policy numerous times - it has to be considered a depressed market by the Treasury Board. The policy you say the CF fought long and hard to get implemented has a great big loophole, in that it allows the TB to have final say on an issue it isn't an expert in. If they say it isn't a depressed market, that is the final word. So policy is being followed. If you are looking to blame anybody, you should be looking at the CREA, who keeps blowing sunshine up the public's a** about how great the real estate market is. The TB, not being the  experts, go to organizations who are SMEs to get their data, and the CREA is likely at the top of the list.
> 
> I would like to know how many CF families are affected by this decision. How many are facing 10s of thousands in losses, because they sold* before members were made aware  * that currently 100% HEA was not being granted. I do feel for those that sold in 2008 and early 2009 before this issue really bubbled up. Since then, members should have been aware that before selling, or buying, they had to consider they would not get HEA.



Log O:

I keep quoting the policy because Treasury Board has not defined  "any area in Canada" as a depressed market.  Therefore, there is a policy which looks good on paper, but there is no intention to honor it.  Especially when they are provided with substantiation of a depressed market (average home sale loss exceeding 20% due to local economic effects), they do not review these.  I know several people on the survey indicated they got 100% HEA (but that is likely $15,000 or less.  I am particularly speaking about those in excess of $15,000 loss of Home Equity.  Does this clear it up a little?

Several previous posts discussed the warnings from CMs on posting to the subject areas, as well as limitations on renting.


----------



## heavy reader (2 Feb 2011)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> I agree that a member should not be out of pocket for a move imposed on them by the CF. Just because we sign on the dotted line does not mean the government has a blank cheque to abuse us. Yes there are members who buy houses out of their league (quite a few of my fellow Officers are the worst offenders) and for those folk, well.....you could always have bough a cheaper house in a cheaper neighbourhood and sent your kids to a more.....diversified school instead of that ritzy one in St. Albert or The Glebe (but I understand and support your desire to have the best for your family so no judgement here). But..... they are taking a gamble on a big housing loss by buying in a big neighbourhood.
> 
> Its wholly unfair though, for the soldier who has to get in over his head simply to have a roof over his family's head, to lose four figures on a move. That soldier should not be punished for being ordered to a new posting. The challenge though, is how to deal with it? We all know that any policy put in place to alleviate the legitimate pain of that small percentage of cases that need help - will quickly become an entitlement that every greedy member wants access to. Look at IR as the perfect example - a planned one-year benefit to allow you to deal with a temporary major family circumstance, that quickly became the default setting on posting. Yes it kept some people in the CF who would otherwise have quit......but holy abuse Batman!!!
> 
> ...



Thank you for your comments.  A few points on your post.  Of the three individuals I am aware of with significant losses (>$50,000), all occurred in rural areas, one local school (aside from the home for wayward youth and three correctional facilities) and far from excessive homes.  Further, I do not believe that 100% HEA out of Core can be linked in any way with excessive benefits (or abuse of) as you discussed with the IR.  This is a benefit to assist those who are disadvantaged, due to their posting  (as you stated).  The critical fact that TB has not declared ANY areas of Canada as depressed markets, and that TB is not reviewing ANY files to consider them as depressed markets leaves the impression that this is a shell policy.

And I agree that your plan of investing and renting during these turbulent housing times is ideal, however renting is not always an option.  Specifically, in my case where family size precludes us from a PMQ or civilian rental unit (at destination or origin).

So, if its a shell policy, what about the following promises made to the soldiers?

CANFORGEN 078/10 2010 Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) indicates that:

(1) 	 CF IRP policy should “meet the evolving needs of CF personnel”;

(2) 	“the intent of the policy is to ensure that personnel are not required to pay for expenses that ought to get assumed by the CF”; and

(3) 	 “I wish to reconfirm that there is ample scope within the CF Relocation Program to reimburse personnel for the majority of expenses incurred during a move”.  

CANFORGEN 130/09 excerpts read as follows:

(1) 	“There is a perception that benefits have been reduced as opposed to enhanced”;

(2) 	“…The Treasury Board Relocation Policy in the Middle of a period of government restraint has left the impression that saving money on relocation costs at the expense of CF personnel and their families is the primary objective.  This is absolutely not the case.  You can still apply to the Directorate of Compensation Benefits Administration for special consideration.  In short, the policy was designed to ensure YOU DO NOT GO OUT OF POCKET FOR EXPENSES THAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CF”.

National Defence had issued Strategic Human Resources Principle as follows:  

(1) 	``We honour the social contact with our people by taking care of their support needs and by trying to satisfy their work and career expectations``

(2) 	``The Government of Canada expects DND and the CF to maintain the mobility and morale of its military personnel in order to effectively perform identified missions, while at the same time ensuring that accommodations support programs are managed prudently and on a sustainable basis``;

(3) 	``Residential accommodation support programs for all CF members must be responsive to emerging needs.  The programs must keep pace with future force structure and posture that will continue to evolve in response to new mission requirements, new military doctrine, uncertain manning levels, technological change and the constant fiscal pressures on the Defence Services Program.``

The Chief Review Services Audit of Military Moves (2007) recommended that:

(1) 	 “Analysis must be based on accurate, comprehensive information, and must consider not only cost implications, but also impact on operations and member quality of life”.

The Canadian Forces and the Canadian Forces Housing Agency have rental accommodations for some military members.  A guiding paper was published entitled “Accommodation in support of the Canadian Forces: A Vision for 2020” .    Specifically:

(1) 	“Accommodation is an essential element in maintaining the morale of CF members and thus contributes to operational effectiveness.  More importantly, Accommodation 2020 is a commitment by the Department and the Canadian Forces that our personnel will be able to secure suitable accommodation wherever we may require them to serve”; 

(2) 	There is a social contract and therefore an expectation, that the entitlements denoted in policies and directives to support our soldiers are attainable.  “DND is committed to ensuring that CF members are able to secure accommodation which is suitable to personal circumstances, in a timely fashion and at any location where duty demands”;

(3) 	“Accommodation is also a basic human support need that must be met as part of the modern social contract with our people;” and

 (4) 	“Accommodation Principles:  Canadian Forces members must be able to secure accommodation that is suitable and available.  When access to suitable or available accommodation is denied or constrained, DND and the CF are prepared to intervene to maintain the mobility of CF members”.  Further, “Canadian Forces members must be able to secure residential accommodation that is appropriate to their household and consistent with Canadian societal norms.”

DAOD 5044-1 identifies the Canadian Forces Commitment to Families, specifically the overarching principles as they relate to 100% HEA out of core.  None of these commitments has been met:

	(1)	“Canadian Forces Commitment - The CF will:
i. 	provide services for the well-being of CF members and   their families; 
ii. 	assist in reducing the impact created by frequent postings on the social and educational integration and stability of CF members and their families; 
iii. 	take measures (through the CF family network) to reduce the impact of long and frequent periods of family separation; and
iv. 	take measures to facilitate families securing accommodation which is suitable to personal circumstances, in a timely fashion and at any location where duty demands.”


Based on the principles, promises and direction promulgated to Canadian Forces personnel by leadership, the criteria within an approved policy (HEA) would be validation enough to claim reimbursement.  

Who is going to make TB accountable for their policy (even if they have a reduced budget this year)?


----------



## clericalchronicals (3 Feb 2011)

Seeing all this chat on the HEA has made me wonder, how many people have been hit by the charming Interest Rate Differential policy?  I know for myself, when I was posted out of Halifax and couldn't purchase in the new location (because housing costs were out of this world) I was subject to pay a $28,000 penalty and received a lovely $9,000 back using all three envelopes (which totally cleaned out my personalized).  Three months from Core, Custom and the entire Personalized envelope...still left me with my hands in my pockets for a stinging $19,000 to borrow from the bank...just to close my house.

Any thoughts???


----------



## Maritimegal (3 Feb 2011)

Log O: Thanks for your comments, but I disagree with your view  that only those who sold and were unaware that they would be not be reimbursed their losses are the only ones that should receive compensation. As someone whose husband has been on IR for the past year because we could not sell our house last year (despite listing at a huge loss), I am just as disadvantaged. Were relisting our house this year and if we sell will still take a large loss. A loss that would NOT have occurred had we not been posted here in 2007. I'm glad you were fortunate to find a place to rent 3 years ago, but we were not as lucky. We were not able to find anything nor could we get a PMQ. We live in a rural community and trust me we our living standards are not high.

My husband cannot remain on IR forever because: 1) it's abusing the system, and 2) it's completely horrible for family life. Renting out a home is risky business unless you have a nest egg to cover future issues that could arise with tenants. Since we chose to list our home last year, we are not entitled to the real estate agent fee in lieu of selling.  Despite knowing full well that we may never be reimbursed HEA, we are running out of options to ensure we don't lose the shirts off our backs.


----------



## QM (3 Feb 2011)

Hi Maritimegal. Your situation sounds awful and I think you are one of the families who should qualify for full reimbursement. Treasury Board would likely have some policy re-writing to do, before that was the case, but I hope you are able to challenge current policies and I hope it comes out in your favour.  No soldier and no soldier's family should be so ill-treated.

I didn't think I had said I was of the view that only those who sold and were unaware that they would not be reimbursed their losses, should be the only ones that should receive compensation. Not sure where that perception came from but that's fine!

I posted my personal circumstances only to contribute to the discussion by showing how I coped with the ridiculous housing situation in much of Canada. I didn't intend to imply that such an approach is a viable solution for everyone, not by any means. Certainly there is a very limited rental market for family-sized dwellings, which is even more limited in rural areas.  My lifestyle supports me being in a condo right downtown - a location certainly unsuitable for many military members.

I truly hope your siutation works out. I would also hope your husband's chain of command would be willing to help him craft any written challenges he may wish to submit, to attempt to change the system. Good luck!!


----------



## Maritimegal (3 Feb 2011)

Log O. My apologies. My comment was in response to Capt Loadie's comment made above. Typo on my part.


----------



## momtoprincesses (8 Feb 2011)

We're there with you.... thankfully we did manage to walk away from the house but we took a 5-digit loss, wrote off all improvements to the property and had to go begging to the bank for mercy on the IRD penalty.   We have a grievance filed which is with IA now on an extension.  It's been months but we're waiting it out.  We did massive amounts of homework and did literally submit a three-inch binder of information.  What will come of it?  Who knows.....   the basis for the grievance is that the policy says you have to demonstrate the depressed market condition with the assistance of your realtor, but the policy is not being applied.  As you can see, the automatic response is that "there are no depressed markets in Canada". 

We're also struggling to recover from some significant misinformation provided by IRP... the latest being that we were told we could claim the loss on our house as a tax deduction to offset the taxable benefit of the HEA we received.... NOT!!!   However, after talking to CRA today I did find out that we CAN claim up to $5,000 of the costs associated with maintaining our empty house (after we moved here on the promise of TDRA benefits that were later cut off and clawed back... a whole different story...)

Re: the question about IRD penalties.   IRP will not pay it for you.  We were successful in negotiating the penalty by going to the president's office of our bank's chain.   In the future, though, the way to avoid this penalty is to take out a short-term variable-rate mortgage (1-3 year term, no more).  A variable-rate mortgage is exempt from that penalty.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Feb 2011)

momtoprincesses said:
			
		

> We're also struggling to recover from some significant misinformation provided by IRP... the latest being that we were told we could claim the loss on our house as a tax deduction to offset the taxable benefit of the HEA we received.... NOT!!!



Why on earth did you take tax advice from IRP  ???


----------



## momtoprincesses (9 Feb 2011)

It was our first posting, so naive optimism, perhaps?   Belief that the professionals knew what they were talking about?  Who knows... but we've learned a lot through the experience, at least.  So it's all good in one way or another and equips us better for the future, and we've been able to steer a couple of friends away from disaster.  So it's not a total loss.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2011)

I find it interesting that one or two posters here have the impression that if they put $20K worth of work into their home in the way of renovations, etc. that they should recoup all that money as well.  In fact, there are very few improvements that one can do to their home that will guarantee a hundred per cent return for their expenditure.  I am not saying that it will not increase the value of your property, only that it will not increase the value by the same amount as your Reno costs.


----------



## TimBit (9 Feb 2011)

Second that, the delta between what you paid and what you recoup is supposed to represent extra enjoyement of your home.


----------



## acooper (9 Feb 2011)

@George - I hope you're not referring to my post with regards to "Expecting all the money we put in back". I don't expect to get it ALL back. It would be nice, though, to get SOMETHING to help us get back to appraised value. No way would we have tried to sell right now, except for my husband joining the Army. Windsor's real estate market is horrible for sellers right now. 

And I guess, if there was no policy on HEA, well, then we get what we get, right? But if there's a policy, it needs to be followed and applied appropriately. Doesn't really sound like this is happening, but we'll see what happens when we get our paperwork filed. I firmly believe that if there's a depressed market in Canada, it would be in Windsor!


----------



## tree hugger (9 Feb 2011)

There's a show on HGTV called "Bang for your Buck".  It's premise is that the owners invest x amount in renovations and a designer and real estate agent determine the expected return on the investment.


----------



## momtoprincesses (10 Feb 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that one or two posters here have the impression that if they put $20K worth of work into their home in the way of renovations, etc. that they should recoup all that money as well.




I don't know about others, but what got us on this one is that our IRP rep approved certain property improvements as being eligible for reimbursement under CFIRP.  There are very specific ones that they will consider a "capital improvement" and reimburse you for under certain financial circumstances.  They didn't amount to even half what we did invest, but we were happy about the possibility, especially since we were taking such a hit from the market.   But those with more power than she had turned it around and said no to that along with the 100% HEA that we applied for (and that she had expected for us to get).  

Live and learn... we'll most likely stick with renting until he is ready to retire, unless we find an amazing deal somewhere.


----------



## Pusser (10 Feb 2011)

momtoprincesses said:
			
		

> I don't know about others, but what got us on this one is that our IRP rep approved certain property improvements as being eligible for reimbursement under CFIRP.  There are very specific ones that they will consider a "capital improvement" and reimburse you for under certain financial circumstances.  They didn't amount to even half what we did invest, but we were happy about the possibility, especially since we were taking such a hit from the market.   But those with more power than she had turned it around and said no to that along with the 100% HEA that we applied for (and that she had expected for us to get).
> 
> Live and learn... we'll most likely stick with renting until he is ready to retire, unless we find an amazing deal somewhere.



Bit of a misconception here.  Brookfield/IRP cannot "approve" home improvements for reimbursement.  Home improvements are not reimbursed - under any circumstances.  All Brookfield/IRP can do is use the cost of eligible capital improvements to determine the "adjusted purchase price."  From there, they use the adjusted purchase price, compared to the actual sale price to calculate the loss.  That's it.


----------



## going_broke (17 Feb 2011)

So there is a CDS decision on grievance 2010-043 (http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-043.html).  In summary, a file was submitted proving that the market declined by about 30%, but DCBA refused to send the file to TBS.

This was the CFGB finding and recommendation: "The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct that the grievor's matter be submitted to TBS, with his strong support, for consideration of the grievor's request for a depressed market designation and reimbursement from his core benefit of 100 percent of the loss on his home."

And the CDS decision: " The CDS redirected the DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with Treasury Board with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members."

Well... So is the file going to TBS or not?? Or is there going to be just another workgroup/commission? Does anyone know more details of this particular grievance?


----------



## captloadie (18 Feb 2011)

I can see TB backing down and reviewing all the cases submitted to them, but still saying no in the majority of cases. I wonder what the recourse is if/when the TB denies the HEA in this case.  With all the  CF options having been expended, what is the next step for members? A class action suit would be long and expensive, if there are even enough cases to form one. I remember once being told that individual CF members could not file suit against the crown while still serving, but this might have been more myth than fact.


----------



## TimBit (18 Feb 2011)

As well, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think collective action or recourse by members of the CF is forbidden.


----------



## heavy reader (18 Feb 2011)

going_broke said:
			
		

> So there is a CDS decision on grievance 2010-043 (http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/2010-043.html).  In summary, a file was submitted proving that the market declined by about 30%, but DCBA refused to send the file to TBS.
> 
> This was the CFGB finding and recommendation: "The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct that the grievor's matter be submitted to TBS, with his strong support, for consideration of the grievor's request for a depressed market designation and reimbursement from his core benefit of 100 percent of the loss on his home."
> 
> ...



I can see the decision/action cycle playing out here....should go something like this:

DCBA: Hey, TBS can you review these files?
TBS: No.
DCBA: OK. We tried.

Followed by radio silence.

One post indicated the possibility of class actions.  Before that discussion would take place, one would need to find out who is the authority in each case.  Is it the administration of the policy (DND's responsibility) or is it a policy issue (TBS issue).  This will vary by case (but there may be clusters in certain areas).

I had been advised that my case was sent to TBS for a "second look", however when I got my ATI request from TBS, they indicated that they have had no communications with DND on this issue. Interesting.

BTW- anyone spare some change for a lawyer?

If the redress system has been exhausted, there is the ombudsman. Failing that, if one were to litigate, you need cash.  I don't know of any lawyers who would do this pro-bono (but kudos to the lawyers who are helping our vets with their issues - seriously, thanks).

I would see that the issue would be between each member and the treasury board secretariat. This would seem to be outside of the military, but there would likely be political ramifications (i.e. posting to Shilo). 

As there are 3-4 grievances at the CDS right now (on this subject), I think it would be prudent to see how they play out.  However, if you are affected, I would encourage some noise making in order to ensure that you (and those posted after you), don't have to deal with this for future postings.  If you have a problem that cannot be resolved within the normal procedures, grieve it so that those initial authorities at least know there is a problem!

How's my cynicism level?


----------



## Strike (18 Feb 2011)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> BTW- anyone spare some change for a lawyer?
> 
> If the redress system has been exhausted, there is the ombudsman. Failing that, if one were to litigate, you need cash.  I don't know of any lawyers who would do this pro-bono (but kudos to the lawyers who are helping our vets with their issues - seriously, thanks).



You might not be able to find a lawyer to take this pro-bono but if the funds you are looking to be reimbursed for are taxable, as in considered a salary and included on your T4, then you can claim the lawyer fees on your income tax.

Haven't had to deal with this issue myself (knock on wood) so not too sure how those payments are handled.


----------



## going_broke (22 Feb 2011)

From the Ombudsman's report on Grievance Process (http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/gp-prg/doc/gp-prg-eng.pdf):

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s decision in a grievance is final and binding. It can, however, be challenged by an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada. The National Defence Act and the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) set out the circumstances
and manner of a court challenge to a grievance decision and, during the course of a judicial review, the court is able to look at the entire grievance file.


----------



## heavy reader (7 Mar 2011)

Update:

For those affected by the HEA policy drag, note that round 2 of the pain is about to start. Just finished with a financial adviser and tax time this year will cost me an extra $5,800 out of pocket.

So, to summarize since posting season:

Lost $88,000 of my equity;
Got $15,000 HEA;
Lost approx $1,000 per month carrying the debt from HEA loss (total of $8,000 so far);
Hammered at tax time (HEA and CMHC are TAXABLE benefits) to the tune of $5,800; and
and waiting for the redress to come to completion (will lose about $25,000 if successful as this is another taxable benefit).

So far this posting has cost about $86,800 out of pocket...and counting. Thats 2 years worth of salary after taxes and only considers the financial cost.  Everthing else has gone for a dump.

Sure with the redress process was faster! (and yes I know the CDS has higher priorities like Libya). BTW, I did not win Lotto Max on Friday, what junk luck!


Other than that, things are wonderful! Keep smiling kids, the ride doesn't end just yet.


----------



## rnkelly (9 Mar 2011)

Curious about how to qualify for the first $15 000 HEA.

I haven't had any luck selling my condo at my old posting location for the last 10 months (currently at my new posting unaccompanied).  Asking price is currently below assessed value, approximately 95%.  So eventually when I sell for less than assessed and original purchase price how do I go about getting the first $15 000.  

80% of loss is covered by core up to $15 000, then custom/personal until exhausted right?  Is this portion all dealt with by Brookfield and if selling for less than 95% of assessed value does it need extra approval?  Then after this, apply for 100% recovery with the TB and wait to get rejected right?

My projected losses will range anywhere from $40 000 to $60 000 when I finally get it sold.


----------



## GINge! (13 Mar 2011)

Keep your chin up Heavy Reader. 

I am curious that TB finds that no market was depressed. I spoke with my realtor about this and it common knowledge among those in their field that Edmonton took a dive from 2007 to 2010. I know you were not in the city of Edmonton, but Edmonton has a web site that shows the appraised value of all homes. I'm sure there is a record of this somewhere, and I would expect your town to maintain a record of property tax assessments over the past 5 years.  

Surely the TB could not argue with city property tax assessments for every house on your street? BTW Hvyrdr - Mine was $470k in 2007, down to $350k in 2009. I don't think my house or your house was a unique situation. I put about $30k of sweat equity into my place, so I should break even this APS...just in time to buy in the soon-to-burst Ottawa market

The crux of the argument is to convince TB that the market is depressed. Make that your schwerpunkt.


----------



## heavy reader (15 Mar 2011)

Hey!
Good to hear a friendly voice.

The problem remains that TB has not even seen my file (nor anyones). TBS has told DCBA that there are no depressed markets and not to send them any files. DCBA then takes the HEA applications and denies them all based on this. My ATI request to TBS indicates that they do not communicate on this subject at all, aside from putting out the master policy.

It's not a question of proving the 20% loss for the affected community, its that they have created a catch 22. I.e. TBS says no depressed markets in Canada, however they will not review any applications which could change that assessment.

Last CDS grievance on the subj matter directs CDS to send the file to TBS for review (in accordance with IRP policy), however I do not believe that it forces TBS's hand in any way. They will likely say there are no depressed markets in Canada. Then the grievor is left with other actions outside of the grievance process.

Watch and shoot!


----------



## heavy reader (15 Mar 2011)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Curious about how to qualify for the first $15 000 HEA.
> 
> I haven't had any luck selling my condo at my old posting location for the last 10 months (currently at my new posting unaccompanied).  Asking price is currently below assessed value, approximately 95%.  So eventually when I sell for less than assessed and original purchase price how do I go about getting the first $15 000.
> 
> ...



Hi there:

You can have a look at all of the comments posted and hopefully get some good ideas. Ensure you always go with policy as the primary source of info, above advice, so you don't get bleeped. Further, the policy I am dealing with is the 2009 policy and there may be some changes to this year's policy) so take note.

If your selling price is below the assessed value - you need to get approval for that or you may NOT GET ANY FUNDS! If you need some advice, send me an e-mail and I can point out the appropriate policy areas for you. I know for 2009 there was a percentage window that you had to stay within or else you needed a letter (I can provide you a template).

If you have done all of your homework, the $15K loss comes out of custom envelope and there is nothing special you need to do for it (aside from presenting the docs to IRP). 

For anything above $15,000 it (normally) comes out of your envelopes until they are dry. You should apply for HEA right away as you can see how long you may have to fight for the reimbursement. I applied for HEA the day my house sold, but you need to get all of the legwork done in advance.

My HEA application was 88 pages long and provided information from the Realtor, city, bills, everything to ensure that all components of the HEA application were covered. Basically, I figured that they would not pay out, so I provided all of the information in the front end, so that when it became a redress, it just needed a cover sheet and it could stand on it's own.

The elements you need to include in your HEA should be included in the IRP policy for the year you were posted. Let me know offline if you need any templates or further information and I may be able to assist you. Remember, it is not the loss you got but the depressed market is (currently) described as a 20% loss for aggregate home sales in your town. Your realtor can build this for you. Probably a good first step.

Further, if you are at month 10, you will want to get this initiated before your relocation benefits expire, I believe there may be a timeline of 12 months, but you need to check with your 2010 IRP policy.


----------



## going_broke (4 Apr 2011)

So it looks like there is some movement on HEA grievances: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-012.html

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS also agreed with the Board's systemic recommendation and he directed the DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. One issue for review is the definition of "community": using a large metropolitain area as a basis for defining a community would average out large discrepancies amongst the communities that make up the larger area. The CDS strongly support the grievor's case as a valid compensation as a claim against the Crown for the loss of equity not reimbursed under the CF IRP, and he forwarded the file to the DCCL.

Too bad the DCCL usually denies the compensation requests...


----------



## heavy reader (5 Apr 2011)

Referernce: DAOD 7004-0 at http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/7000/7004-0-eng.asp

It iwll be interesting if DCCL actually accepts these claims as their website specifically excludes claims with respect to relocation...Perhaps this is an oversight or there may a valid mechanism to address the claims (if not successful through TBS submission).

DAOD 7004 reads as follows (under definitions):

"Claims (réclamations) 
Claims include requests for compensation to cover losses, expenditures or damages sustained by the Crown or a claimant, including requests or suggestions that the Crown make an ex gratia payment. 
*Claims do not include claims made under other governing instruments or policies, for example: * under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Equal Wages); 
from a contract dispute; 
*for loss and recovery of money; * for damage or loss to Crown servants' effects during travel or *relocation that may be claimed under the public service or CF integrated relocation programs*; and 
related to bodily injury while on duty. "

Hopefully I am missing something here. Perhaps as the losses were not able to be claimed under CF IRP, that would allow DCCL to address those particular claims as directed by the CDS?


----------



## going_broke (8 Apr 2011)

I hope CDS has its own crew of legal advisers who would know the DAOD....  they way I read it is that "damage or loss to Crown servants' effects" are not covered...


----------



## heavy reader (10 May 2011)

Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699

Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.

2007/2008 (33 applied, 0 approved)
2008/2009 (49 applied, 0 approved)
2009/2010 (54 applied, 0 approved)

Shouldn't this be setting off alarms somewhere? There is an demonstrated requirement as the number of applicants is on the rise, there is an approved policy to assist those who need it and yet, there has been no-one approved for 100% HEA from core. 

Comments?


----------



## MJP (10 May 2011)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699
> 
> Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.
> 
> ...



It could be that the increase is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of posting for that year, or the number of applications has risen linearly in proportion to the number of postings for those years.  I couldn't tell you either way as the full set of numbers are not included in your post.  It would be better presented as a case if they were all from the same geographic region, but again I can't infer that from your number only the total number across the board.  Did you get any other numbers with your ATI that we could work with?


----------



## heavy reader (10 May 2011)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Reference: Access to information request file # A-2010-00699
> 
> Just got the results of an ATI request (took 8 months).  Here is the breakdown of CF members who have applied for and been granted 100% HEA from core between 2007 and 2010.
> 
> ...




Reference: Depressed Housing Market RLRS Analysis-Edmonton - March 2009 CF IRP as found in Access to information request file # A-2010-00699


Oh yeah, the other thing that this particular ATI (ref) demonstrated was that the only policy clarification or research studies on depressed markets disclosed by the CF was an analysis conducted by Royal Lepage Relocation Services (RLRS) conducted in Edmonton (the city of, not surrounding areas) and using data from 2007 and 2008.  

How can that be used as substantiation for losses which occurred since then (i.e. 2009 and 2010)?  

Subject document contains anecdotal assessments from local appraisers in Edmonton and uses minimal evidence based information, rather it relies on grand economic inferences (probably taken from Wikipedia). It does, however show HEA losses of between $13,000 and $66,000 for military members in EDMONTON (again not the surrounding areas), showing again that there is a need to live up to the  policy.

All of the information from the ATI concerning policy clarification between TBS and DCBA had been removed citing sections 19,21 and 23 of the ATI act.

MJP, there were no other numbers provided for that portion. The issue is that there is a systemic denial of the HEA provision within the TBS.

OK, now comments?


----------



## heavy reader (13 Jun 2011)

Update:

Clarification and update may be found at http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Publications_PerspectivesMay11.html.

In this update by the grievance board, they have found the problem and clearly laid it out. A good read for those affected. Hopefully there will be some tangible relief within the near future.

Good luck all.


----------



## heavy reader (13 Jun 2011)

A few other interesting points from an Access to Information request recently received (ATI Request # A-2010-00725).

TBS cannot provide their own criteria used to determine if an area is a "depressed market". 

Second interesting point is there is only ONE email chain (heavily censored), concerning "Any request from the department of National Defence pertaining to consideration or evaluation of a "depressed market"". These were sent between Oct and Nov 2009.

The article provided in the post above  (Perspectives Vol 1, #5, May 2011) details some of the discussion between Treasury Board and the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. This article indicates one reason why those affected have not been reimbursed according to policy.  Are you ready for the rationale?

A staff officer at TB indicated that "there are no depressed markets in Canada". The article goes on to say that this statement was clarified to the board as follows:

"The matter had not been pursued given other more pressing priorities and TBS conviction that there simply isn't a big enough problem to justify a submission for a policy change".

I would like to say a few things about the Treasury Board's justification.

1/ This isn't a request to change the policy.  I met the Treasury Board requirements for 100% HEA loss. I would just like to see it followed through.

2/ Perhaps the staffer involved can conduct a conference call with my family to discuss why there is no money this month to do the fun things a family should do. Like eat, have enough spare change to put down their lame dog or allow dad some spare time away from begging for money from civil organizations to make payments on the outstanding HEA debt.

3/ Shouldn't someone have followed up since 2009?


----------



## heavy reader (20 Jun 2011)

Redress is up on the CFGB website.

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html


----------



## wesleyd (28 Jun 2011)

I am in a similar situation albeit not nearly as dire as yours. I have been posted inland after being in Halifax for 20+ years. (In my home for 10) I had my house appraised and priced it accordingly when listed. Home equity assistance will not help me as I have lived in my home for too long to sell below original sale price. However I do have to purchase a home when I move at current market prices. I am now well below appraised value and still no offers. I have read the NJC directive, there is a link to it on the secure Brookfield site, on moving and there is a directive regarding HSA (home sale assistane). It states that if the property sells for less than 95% of appraised value they will make up that difference up to 15K from core. I have asked several dozen times for Brookfield to look into this to no avail. Why would the CF elect not to include this in its own IRP? It would seem more appropriate given current market fluctuations and would help people that have been in their homes for longer than the average.  I think rather than update the current HEA policy it should be scrapped and have this policy or something similar to it instated. It is just very dissatisfying to see other public servants getting benefits while we do not. We all have the same employer. I wish you luck with your redress.


----------



## captloadie (29 Jun 2011)

Your problem is vastly different then those posted in this topic. Heavy reader has taken an actual loss. He is out money. You on the other hand are only out "profit" or equity. Why should the tax payer offset your perceived loss on an investment? I sold my house 4 years ago for 20K under the appraisal. What did I expect get out of IRP? Nothing. And why? Because the house sold for 20K over what I had invested in it. 

And you don't have to buy a house. You want to buy a house. You could rent, try for a PMQ, etc.


----------



## sig327 (6 Jul 2011)

Here's another poor (literally) soldier getting screwed.

I was posted after buying in Edmonton in 2007. I tried everything I could to get the posting cancelled, it ended up delayed for 3 months because of all the admin I was creating, was even told I could be looking at jail time if I delayed any longer (BS if you ask me). My units RSM marched me in and gave me a harsh lecture about the trouble I was creating. His exact words "no one ordered you to buy a home".

Whatever, I'm done with the military now, I'll be out in September and going back to school and also out $60,000.

%$&# You military!


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2011)

sig327 said:
			
		

> %$&# You military!



See ya, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jul 2011)

sig327 said:
			
		

> Whatever, I'm done with the military now, I'll be out in September and going back to school and also out $60,000.
> 
> %$&# You military!



I thought you were done back in 2006:



			
				sig327 said:
			
		

> I just signed my second BE a few months ago(big mistake). And now I want out, My initial BE isn't even up untill April. If I put in a VR now, what kind of time frame can i expect before it's all done with? Is there anything i could say that would make the process go quicker?



 :


----------



## MJP (6 Jul 2011)

sig327 said:
			
		

> Here's another poor (literally) soldier getting screwed.
> 
> I was posted after buying in Edmonton in 2007. I tried everything I could to get the posting cancelled, it ended up delayed for 3 months because of all the admin I was creating, was even told I could be looking at jail time if I delayed any longer (BS if you ask me). My units RSM marched me in and gave me a harsh lecture about the trouble I was creating. His exact words "no one ordered you to buy a home".
> 
> ...



While I sympathize a little with folks that were posted in and bought houses in that timeframe and then are subsequently posted out sooner than they expected thus taking losses, I have none for you.  You lived there already but made the decision to buy during a period of artificially high house prices.  The army certainly didn't make you buy a house and to a degree is not responsible for the financial decisions that you make. 

That  and your only other post here on Army.ca was asking how to release ASAP in 2006, so the intention to get out was before you bought a house in 2007.  Methinks you just want a better excuse for blaming the military for your woes and release...


----------



## sig327 (7 Jul 2011)

Your going to bring up a post over 5 years ago when I was young clueless private. I guess you all have a perfect history of no mistakes or regrets. I wish I was in the same boat. Things turned around since then and I was happy I decided to stay, I bought because I wanted get out of the shacks and settle into my career.

I don't want to drag this thead off topic anymore, there's lots of good info here. I probably should have chosen my words more carefully but I was a little heated when I wrote it. If you want to kick me while I'm down just do it through PMs


----------



## MJP (7 Jul 2011)

sig327 said:
			
		

> Your going to bring up a post over 5 years ago when I was young clueless private. I guess you all have a perfect history of no mistakes or regrets. I wish I was in the same boat.


First, I never admit to being perfect and am far from it.  But then again I don't going around blaming the military for my financial decisions.

Second we don't know you except through your posting history here on Army.ca.  From that we make inferences that may or may not be right.  We can only work with what you give us and since as you haven't given any context to your recent post except to tell us how the army "screwed" you how did you expect us to react?  Maybe suck back come and make a logical post outlining your situation and we can collectively help you.  Posting crap just gets crap in return.


----------



## Pistos (22 Jul 2011)

And now for something completely different...

In April of last year I applied for 100% HEA.  We (my wife and I...mostly my wife) compiled a fairly thick tome in which we laid out a case arguing that our market should be classed as depressed.  After submitting it through the proper chain we waited and hoped...hoped and waited...and waited...and inquired (several times, to no avail)...and waited...and lost hope...and waited...inquired several more times (achieving similar results as previous)...and waited...and finally abandoned all hope.

Several days ago, fully 15 months later, out of the blue I received a memo thru my IRP relocation coordinator from a Lieutenant-Colonel - Director Compensation and Benefits.

"As per article 8.2.13, _[my]_ request was forwarded to TBS
> for review and consideration declaring _[my market]_ as a
> depressed market region on 30 Jun 10.  TBS conducted a thorough
> analysis and review of _[my]_ HEA request and they have deemed
> _[my market]_ a depressed market area.  As such, _[my]_ request
> for 100% HEA reimbursement from Core is approved.  BGRS shall readjust
> _[my]_ core and custom envelops accordingly.

Yesterday Brookfield contacted me and I went into their office to sign claims.  My office, being short-staffed and consisting of newly minted reps has a senior adviser from out East training and helping them get caught up. She was flabbergasted; in her experience she had never seen this approved.  We chatted for a bit and she talked me through the claim, explaining all of the numbers and how they were derived.  

One thing I noticed is that there were no capital improvements included.  When we were selling the property {standard} HEA used up all of my custom envelope so they handed back my original capital improvement receipts because there was simply no money to entertain them. With this approval, all of the HEA previously taken from custom reverted to core, freeing up my custom envelope for things such as said capital improvements. However, since it's been over 2 years from the time my file was opened it is now closed and my agent is unable to process additional claims.  Turns out I need to shoot of a memo to DCBA asking for an extension and requesting my file be reopened.  I remain hopeful as this is certainly an extenuating circumstance.  

I could have my HEA money as soon as tomorrow.  I will certainly be pursuing capital improvements funds but if nothing comes of it I am still quite happy with the response received.  What I was expecting was a standard "There are no depressed markets in Canada". Just to find that my application was indeed read and considered was gratifying, the favorable result was the cherry on top.

For reference, this was my first posting and my residence is that which I owned prior to enrolling.  It is located in rural Nova Scotia, over 200km from the nearest base.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2011)

Maybe that just goes to show everyone that compiling the proper paperwork, and some patience can turn out in your favour.

Congrats on your reimbursement, as much as its easy to say "Army didn't tell you to buy a house", there's simply no PMQs available in most places and the rent market is extremely poor in smaller towns.


----------



## heavy reader (22 Jul 2011)

Congrats, although I wanted to be the one to "break the HEA" code.

I am certainly pleased that the TBS has relented and processed your application. Hopefully this will have a ripple effect for others in a similar situation. Your wife deserves a pat on the back as well.

Thank you for your update, I will send you a PM to discuss offline if you are willing.

Never give up...ever!


----------



## heavy reader (31 Oct 2011)

Update:

CDS has granted partial support to grievance. DCBA directed to send the request to TBS (as was mandated in relocation policy).  Going on to 15 months now carrying a growing debt of over 100K (the fun doesn't stop).

I understand there are 2 other (similar) requests at DCBA (after going to CDS thru Grievance process).  Anyone else having any progress with their situation?


----------



## going_broke (2 Nov 2011)

My community declined only 18%... sent file to DCBA with a request that TBS considers my equity loss as "exceptional expense" related to the move... 7 months waiting and counting..

Found an interesting piece of TBS regulations, on Ex Gratia payments. Here is what it says:

7.4 Ex gratia payment  

The Directive is not used to fill perceived gaps or compensate for the apparent limitations in any act, order, regulation, policy, agreement or other governing instruments-if, for example, a particular subject is governed by another instrument and that instrument does not provide for such a payment, the Directive cannot be used to expand that instrument and an exception to the governing instrument would need to be sought;

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=17068&section=text#sec7.4

The way I read it, the TBS itself says - if the policy is deficient, then seek an exception to it.  So that's what I am doing.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Dec 2011)

Just found a few interesting articles about the individual public servant who is the sole and final decision maker on HEA 100% from core benefits, and who has unilaterally declared that there are no depressed markets in Canada. He is currently mentioned  for his role in the $1 Billion dollar relocation contract which is responsible to relocate all of our soldiers, sailors and airmen/women.

The news reported in November that, according to the Ottawa Sun, he was investigated for his part in bid rigging for the Royal Lepage Contract fiasco and also for running a religious charity which "declared almost $1.2 million in revenue from 2004 to 2010 ... spending $1.3 million in total but only $268,000 on charity projects", the news also reports that this charity is run from his Ottawa house, which used 80,000 of the funds.

I could go on, but the articles speak for themselves:

Have a look for yourself and decide if soldiers are being manipulated...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/11/02/charity-head-is-at-centre-of-bid-rigging-case

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/11/23/tainted-civil-servant-didnt-evaluate-new-bids

Now, I find it rather difficult to have faith that my request for 100% HEA from Core will be assessed on its merits if these news articles are correct, as my file has gone from the CDS, to DCBA to...Mr Ram Singh, Office of the Integrated Relocation Program Project Authority and spiritual leader of Sai Nilayam.  Perhaps I should start praying to him.

I realize that the press is often misleading, I will continue to follow this story and post findings on the outcomes of the case as they become available.  

I welcome your comments.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Dec 2011)

Update on Ram Singh:

Looks like someone's going to be looking for a new line of work.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/12/08/judge-considers-sun-request-for-secret-evidence


----------



## heavy reader (16 Dec 2011)

CDS decision posted.

Good morning all.  CDS has ruled on my grievance.  Decision has been posted at http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html


"Case # 2011-025

Home Equity Assistance (HEA), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011-04-29 

The grievor suffered a loss of $88,000 upon the sale of his home on posting. He was granted reimbursement under Home Equity Assistance (HEA) in the amount of $15,000 from his Core funding. The grievor provided a well substantiated application to the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) requesting HEA reimbursement for 100 percent of his loss from his Core benefit on the grounds that his community constituted a depressed market area as specified in the policy, the Canadian Forces (CF) Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) Active Posting Season 2010, section 8.2.13. The grievor’s submission included evidence that the real estate market in his community had declined by over 23 percent. 

The DCBA Relocation Adjudication Section denied the grievor's request on the grounds that the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) had determined that there were no locations in Canada designated with depressed market status. 

The grievor disputed the DCBA decision, suggesting that DCBA had used a blanket TBS denial to turn down his request and reiterating that his community fell within the definition of a depressed market area according to the CF IRP. He also noted that he had advised his career manager that he had serious concerns with that posting because he simply could not afford the housing in that area and the Private Married Quarters had lengthy waiting lists and were not available. He further explained that the loss on the sale of his home had had a severe impact on his family and that he was very close to the point of bankruptcy. He also stated that if he were not granted 100 percent reimbursement, he may be forced to leave the CF. 

As redress, the grievor requested reimbursement under the HEA for 100 percent of his loss, reimbursement for the interest he was paying on a monthly basis on the debt he had incurred in relation to the loss on the home and reimbursement of several other consequential expenses related to the denial of his original HEA application.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) denied redress noting that the CFIRP directive represented TBS approved policy and that the Department had no authority to amend such a policy or extend a benefit beyond its prescribed margins. The IA explained that the TBS had declared that there were no locations in Canada designated with depressed market status for 2010.

The IA also stated that, since the grievance pertained to a matter prescribed by the Governor in Council (GIC) in regulations, the grievance file was returned without further action. She advised the grievor that a request to amend a policy or a TBS decision should be staffed administratively through his chain of command.

The Board disagreed with the IA’s decision to dismiss the grievance. The Board noted that it had previously stated, and the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had agreed, that it is open to a member to grieve the application of a policy or regulation to him or her personally.

The Board found that the grievor had submitted a valid grievance that ought to be judged on its merits.

The Board noted that the HEA policy in CF IRP section 8.2.13 required that DCBA forward to TBS a case for depressed market status built and submitted by a CF member and his or her realtor. Accordingly, the Board found that the grievor's file should have been forwarded to TBS. The Board indicated that, based on the evidence on file, the grievor's community fell within the HEA policy definition of a depressed market area, “... a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%,” which would entitle him to reimbursement of 100 percent of his loss.

The Board recommended to the CDS that he direct that the grievor's HEA application be submitted to TBS with the full support of the CF, for consideration of the grievor's request for a depressed market designation and reimbursement from Core of 100 percent of the loss on his home sale. 

The Board noted that there was no authority under the policy to grant the payment of interest nor any of the other out-of-pocket expenses which the grievor attributed to the denial of his original HEA submission, and as such, did not recommend that the CDS grant this portion of the grievor's requested redress.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011-09-19 

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS directed the DGCB to prepare and transmit the grievor's HEA submission to Treasury Board (TB), in accordance with the CF IRP provisions, for evaluation of depressed market status. In the event that TB should not find in favour of this submission, the CDS invited the grievor to forward his file to DCCL for compensatory consideration as a claim against the Crown, with his full support.

Since there are now a number of grievances relating to CF members who have experienced severe losses in home equity as a result of being posted to and from the Edmonton area, the CDS reiterated his previous direction to the DGBC, as recommended by the Board in previous files, which is to continue to engage TB in vigorous negotiations. The CDS specified that the negotiations should be focused as follows:

a. to revisit the TB's determination that there were no depressed markets in Canada in 2010, including the definition of ''community''; and

b. to re-examine the CF IRP HEA provisions, in particular the 20% depressed market criteria and the $15,000.00 maximum amount reimbursable under the CF IRP core envelope.
"

As a result, the Treasury Board now has the file.  Hopefully we will hear good news in 2012.


----------



## GINge! (25 Dec 2011)

Good luck my friend. I hope your hard work pays off, not just for you, but for all the other folks who bought in 07 and sold in 09-10.


----------



## heavy reader (20 Feb 2012)

Update...none.

Decision remains at TBS for their action.


----------



## heavy reader (14 May 2012)

Update: TBS still sitting on the fence for the decision.


----------



## heavy reader (3 Jul 2012)

Update:

The 100% HEA loss has been featured in the 28 June 2012 Ombudsman's Report:  Here is an exerpt from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=683289

Ombudsman Releases Annual Report: Delivering Results for Canada's Defence Community

Ottawa, June 28, 2012 - The Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, Mr. Pierre Daigle, today released his 2011-2012 annual report, entitled Delivering Results for Canada’s Defence Community.

In his annual report, the Ombudsman provided an overview of the more than 1,900 individual cases handled by the office over the past fiscal year, the most common of which related to benefits, release from military service, medical issues, recruiting, redress of grievance, military postings, and harassment. “I am extremely proud of the real and positive results that our dedicated staff has delivered for the members of Canada’s Defence community,” stated Mr. Daigle.

In releasing his annual report, the Ombudsman also highlighted a number of issues of concern that were brought to his attention during his extensive outreach efforts or as recurring individual complaints. For example, during his many outreach visits, the Ombudsman heard from Canadian Forces members across the country that the Integrated Relocation Program is causing a great deal of frustration. Widespread criticism has been focused on the way in which the program is administered and on its restrictions, which are causing significant strain – particularly the door-to-door requirements. 

*Over the past year, the Ombudsman’s office also received a number of complaints related to financial losses when Canadian Forces members are posted and have to sell their homes in certain areas of the country. After reviewing these complaints, the office identified serious concerns with the Home Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program. “When posted, Canadian Forces members can be faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of availability of military housing, limited housing options in the open market, low rental vacancy rates and a short time-frame in which to decide where to live,” stated Mr. Daigle.  He added, “As a result of the Home Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian Forces members have incurred significant financial hardship through no fault of their own.”*

In his annual report, Mr. Daigle also outlined his serious concerns regarding delays with military claims and grievances, delays in getting access to the Reserve Force pension plan, and delays with civilian classification grievances.

In addition to addressing individual complaints and a number of issues of concern, the Ombudsman’s office also initiated and continued to work on a number of broader investigations.

For example, in 2011, the Ombudsman launched a third follow-up investigation into the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries in the Canadian Forces. The investigation will determine the status of the nine recommendations contained in the 2008 report, entitled A Long Road to Recovery: Battling Operational Stress Injuries, and the seven recommendations included in the companion report, The State of Mental Health Services at CFB Petawawa.

As part of the investigation, Ombudsman staff conducted more than 200 interviews with over 425 individuals, including senior leaders at National Defence Headquarters and within the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. The investigative team also travelled to Canadian Forces Bases Edmonton, Gagetown, Halifax, Petawawa, Shilo, Trenton, Valcartier and Wainwright in order to meet with medical staff and other caregivers, Integrated Personnel Support Centre staff, Operational Stress Injury Social Support program staff, Military Family Resource Centre staff, unit leadership, Canadian Forces personnel, military families and others. In addition, during their collection of data, the investigative team accumulated and assessed more than 650 documents. The investigation will be completed and released in the summer of 2012. 

In early 2012, the Ombudsman’s office began a follow-up investigation to assess the status of the recommendations made in the office’s 2008 special report entitled Reserved Care: An Investigation into the Treatment of Injured Reservists. This investigation is expected to be finalized and published in the summer of 2012.

In his annual report, the Ombudsman also announced that the office will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the issues and challenges facing Canada’s military families across the country.  The office’s most visible intervention in recent years has been related to the care and treatment of military families who have lost a Canadian Forces loved one while the member was serving their country. The focus on this issue, however, shed light on a number of other concerns that affect the lives of Canada’s military families, including operational tempo, operational stress injuries, housing, medical concerns, and social and community support.

At the same time, since the Ombudsman’s office was established in 1998, more than 1,000 military families have come forward with complaints and concerns (more than 100 over the past 12 months) regarding these and other issues. Moreover, through the Ombudsman’s extensive outreach efforts, the office has also encountered and documented dozens of similar complaints from military families across the country.

As part of its review, the office will be looking at whether the Canadian Forces have the appropriate policies, programs and resources in place to properly care for Canada’s military families. The office is also interested in working with provincial ombudsmen from across the country in order to look at best practices and see if some collective recommendations can be put in place to improve the quality of life of Canada’s military families. Finally, the office will also be talking to military families and looking at the care and treatment they have received throughout their experience with the Canadian Forces – from the time their loved ones joined the military, to the initial and ongoing training periods, to the various postings, to the operational deployments, and to when they decide to leave the Defence community.

In launching this comprehensive study, the Ombudsman stated, “Canada’s military families are national entities and have a key role to play in maintaining the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.” He added, “They also sacrifice a great deal for their Canadian Forces loved ones and we want to see if we can help address some of their most pressing concerns and challenges.”

It is expected that this review will be completed and published in fiscal year 2012-2013.

More information on the office’s investigations and special reports, including the 2011-2012 annual report, is available on the Ombudsman’s website at: www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca.

-30-

For additional information, please contact:
Michelle Laliberté
Communications Advisor
Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman 
Tel: (613) 995-8643
E-mail: Michelle.Laliberte@forces.gc.ca



*Further, page 11 of the Ombudsman's report at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/ar-ra/2011-2012/doc/2011-2012-eng.pdf goes on in more detail:*

Home Equi t y A s s i s ta nce
The Ombudsman’s office has received a number
of complaints related to financial losses when
Canadian Forces members are posted and have
to sell their homes in certain areas of the country.
After reviewing these complaints, the office has
identified serious concerns with the Home
Equity Assistance policy within the Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program.
When posted, Canadian Forces members can be
faced with volatile market conditions, a lack of
availability of military housing, limited housing
options in the open market, low rental vacancy
rates and a short time-frame in which to decide
where to live. Many of these circumstances
are beyond the control of Canadian Forces
members and can have severe and long-lasting
financial and personal consequences.
Under the Home Equity Assistance policy, Canadian
Forces members are only compensated for the
full loss on the sale of a home if it is located in a
community where Treasury Board Secretariat, the
authority on the government’s relocation policy,
has determined that the housing market has
dropped by more than 20 percent. The Canadian
Forces Integrated Relocation Program requires
that a military member, who wishes to apply for
depressed market status due to a home equity
loss, must substantiate his/her case and submit
it to the Director of Compensation and Benefits
Administration for consideration and possible
submission to Treasury Board Secretariat.
When Treasury Board Secretariat renders a positive
decision on a case, the Director of Compensation
and Benefits Administration applies that decision
to all Home Equity Assistance cases for full
reimbursement for that same region and that
same year. If Treasury Board Secretariat does not
recognize the area as a depressed market, only
80 percent of the financial loss is reimbursed, up
to a maximum of $15,000. As a result of the Home
Equity Assistance policy, a number of Canadian
Forces members have incurred significant
financial hardship through no fault of their own.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has supported a
number of grievances as valid claims for Canadian
Forces members’ loss of equity as a result of the sale
of their home; however, he has no financial authority
to reimburse these losses.
The Ombudsman’s office is concerned by the financial
losses and the resulting distress being placed
on military members and their families as a result
of relocation. The office will continue to investigate
complaints that relate to Home Equity Assistance
and submit recommendations as appropriate.

SITEP on my issue: Awaiting TBS Decision (9 months now).


----------



## heavy reader (5 Aug 2012)

After three years and one day, the Treasury Board has finally rendered their decision on our Home Equity Assistance application. 

Denied.

I will present the response after I have declassified the documentation through access to information.  

I find now that I am forced to submit a claim against the Crown. If there are any other serving CF members who may have been affected as laid out in this discussion, please contact me at i_win@live.ca to discuss options regarding a class action lawsuit in Federal Court.

Keep strong


----------



## Occam (5 Aug 2012)

Boggling.  I can only imagine how frustrating this must be, on many different levels.  Don't give up.


----------



## Quellefille (8 Aug 2012)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> After three years and one day, the Treasury Board has finally rendered their decision on our Home Equity Assistance application.
> 
> Denied.
> 
> ...



Aw man, I was rooting for you!  Ram Singh hates the word yes, unless it's for an executive.  I hope things go well for you


----------



## bridges (9 Aug 2012)

Good grief.  It would be interesting to know on what grounds they based their decision.  



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Boggling.  I can only imagine how frustrating this must be, on many different levels.  Don't give up.



Agreed.  This kind of fight can be exhausting.   Kudos to you for going through this process.   Good luck.


----------



## heavy reader (10 Aug 2012)

Good morning:

There has been an overwhelming response on this board and via e-mail from the number of people already affected, as well as those who are expecting a loss this posting season.  I can summarize what has been done already, and where I am going.  All I can say is that you have a choice on how each individual is going to find their solutions.  There is an easy road (delare bankruptcy early and start rebuilding your credit, which will of course preclude you from homebuying for several years) or fight for your entitlements (of which the 100% HEA out of core is an entitlement, not a benefit). Either road will have an affect on you, your family and your job. You will need to be professional, determined and above all, patient.

Before I get into this, note that this posting season there may be a change in the CFIRP program, so it is important to understand any changes in policy as they may not reflect those which affected my posting in 2010.

*For those who are expecting an equity loss above 15K in 2012*, these are my lessons learned:

1. Know the policy;
2. Determine which portions of the policy you are going to fight (whether the geolocation, 20% criterea, timliness etc);
3. Start building a package for IRP before the home sells (only the numbers change).  For example, I had to take off two weeks of leave to build a concise 88 page application for HEA.  This was done so that it was complete enough to travel through the grievance system without the need for additional info resulting in further delays;
4. Be dead accurate in all you say and do;
5. Make timelines and deadlines for yourself;
6. Get help (from your realtors, neighbours, community, OR, administrators, governance, Mental Health etc);
7. Build a strategic plan for your financial survival (do not assume that this will be over quickly).  My origional assessment was 10 years, and its only been 3 very hard years. I've done everything from selling family heirlooms, yard sales, bottle drives, accessing social services to keep our family afloat.  The burden of carrying this debt has resulted in a net loss (currently) of $1900 per month on top of the origional claim. Time is not on our side.
8. Get used to your new financial reality asap.  Face it, if you are reading this, you have been hard done by. Money won't be coming your way anytime soon. Adapt a new standard of living - SISIP fin counsellors can help with a budget, but you are the one who needs to execute it.
9. Use this forum for questions and answers. There are more affected than represented here. All have valuable opinions which have been helpful to date (apprecated).

*For those already fighting the good fight:*

Here are my (rough) actions to date and the decisions. These are listed to allow each of you to avoid the pitfalls and save on some staff work:

1. Applied for 100% HEA out of core  the day after house sold (2010); initiated access to information requests;
2. HEA verbally discouraged by CFIRP at sp base;
3. HEA denied by DCBA (rationale - TBS states there are no depressed markets in Canada);
4. Grieved the decision;
5. DCBA (as the initial authority) returned the grievance "without further action" as they believed that CFIRP policy was not grievable;
6. Elevated grievance, went to CDS who partially supported the grievance (supported the claim, but could not pay out);
7. CDS directed DCBA to submit the application to TBS (as directed in CFIRP policy), failing that CDS directed that I should submit a claim against the crown;
8. TBS rejected the application (considered my community as part of Edmonton);
9. Submitted claim against the crown; submitted more access to information requests;
10. Awaiting returns from ATI requests.
11. Failing a claim against the crown, class action lawsuit in Federal Court (kind of sounds like a repitition of the SCONDVA report http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/scondva/engraph/reports_and_documents_e.asp

In my particular situation, my community is far from the area of Edmonton, however TBS has not defined community (from ATI requests), leaving it up to their discretion. 

References:  Recommend review of the following websites for further information:

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/SR24.html#SR25
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/Publications_Perspectives201105.html

Previous ATI requests:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/req-eng.asp (Treasury Board)
http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/aip/cr-dc-eng.asp (Canadian Forces)

Previous grievances:

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2009-091.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-012.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-015.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2010-043.html
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html This is my grievance.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-119.html

Note the RCMP also falls under the TBS IRP and they have redresses online as well:

See grievances numbered G-205, G-232, G-242, G-244, G-300, G-415 for Home Equity Assistance available at http://www.erc-cee.gc.ca/cases-cas/comm-idx-eng.aspx and
see grievances numbered G-278, G-281, G-297, G-299, G-337, G-341, G-345, G-349, G-357, G-360, G-383, G-406, G-409, G-505, G-524 for RCMP IRP grievances.

As requestested, I will shortly post my table of contents for general use of an application for 100% HEA out of Core for general reference.

And, oh yes, you will need to review the   Military Administrative Law Manual.  You thought you were in the combat arms, now you need to become a lawyer to recoup your equity entitlements.  The manual (A-LG-007-000/AF-010) can be found at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/mal-dam/miladminlaw-droitadminmil-eng.pdf  

Have a great Friday!


----------



## heavy reader (5 Sep 2012)

Good evening all:

This will likely be my last post here. No, I'm not offing myself but preparing for a class action suit for those negatively affected by the 100% HEA out of core decisions.

*Anyone interested in sharing information, joining the suit or providing assistance, please contact me at i_win@live.ca* (no commitment at this time, looking to gauge interest).

A separate file sharing folder has been made online for sharing of decisions, research, access to information etc , but as the details are rather personal - they will only be accessible to those who are interested in joining the class action.

*I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who have offered their constructive criticism, support and suggestions over the last three years*. This forum and your support has been very important to me and all of those families (over 146 as of 2010) denied this entitlement.

Anyone with contacts who would be willing to do some pro-bono work on this subject would be very welcomed.

All the best, and keep strong.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Sep 2012)

Bon chance.


----------



## bridges (6 Sep 2012)

Sometimes the system has to be held to account - and unfortunately this generally comes at great personal cost to those doing the work.   It's a significant undertaking.  Best of luck to you.


----------



## heavy reader (25 Sep 2012)

Here's another case where a soldier has been denied $72,000  out of pocket due to denial of Home Equity Assistance from Core entitlement.

I would advise all relocating members to become familiar with this issue as it could very easily  be you next APS.  Over 150 have been denied to date.

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2012-064.html


----------



## DAA (25 Sep 2012)

Not to sound callous, but is it not reasonable to view cases such as this as a "bad investment" on the part of the individual who bought the home?  Purchasing a home is generally the largest investment that anyone will ever make.  I know that as a member of the CF, anytime I have ever bought a house on posting, one HUGE FACTOR on my mind is the fact that I am going to have to resell it........


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Sep 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Not to sound callous, but is it not reasonable to view cases such as this as a "bad investment" on the part of the individual who bought the home?  Purchasing a home is generally the largest investment that anyone will ever make.  I know that as a member of the CF, anytime I have ever bought a house on posting, one HUGE FACTOR on my mind is the fact that I am going to have to resell it........



Its not the same as an investment, you aren't forced to sell your investment in poor market conditions. Yes, there are some people who demand they get what they paid for the house even in a market downturn, but the ones that are getting screwed are the ones that are forced to sell for way under appraised value (appraised in the current market) who could lose their shirts.

Considering the CF is content on getting rid of a lot of PMQs, what do you expect soldiers to do?


----------



## Occam (25 Sep 2012)

To add to what PuckChaser said, you can't always read a crystal ball and be able to foresee this stuff happening.  The area around the oil patch was going through huge growth and rising real estate costs due to rising oil prices.  When oil prices fell, and the boom turned to bust, real estate prices dropped sharply.  I don't think anyone could successfully predict a huge *drop* in oil prices a few years down the road, making the oil sands less lucrative.


----------



## DAA (25 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not the same as an investment, you aren't forced to sell your investment in poor market conditions.



Oh but yes, your home is definitely an investment and when you purchase one as a CF member, the potential future resale value needs to be a real and present consideration.

Mind you, when the CF says "it's time to go" it may not be in our best interests to sell but we have little if any choice, so we should be reimbursed for "reasonable" losses as a result.

I would love to point fingers but I am not sure who to point at?  The Realtor or the CF member?  I have seen so so many people buy homes at what I personally would consider "inflated" prices, only to end up taking a substantial hit 2-4 years later and not as a result of a "depressed market".  Most of the time, it is a first time buyer too.....


----------



## aesop081 (25 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> you aren't forced to sell your investment in poor market conditions.



You're not forced to sell your house either. I was going to lose money last APS so i did not sell and rented my home out.


----------



## heavy reader (15 Oct 2012)

More HEA policy issues to come:

Perhaps I have missed something, but the CBI (below) indicates that only a 10% loss is now required (effective 1 Sept 2012) to get 90% HEA out of core.  However, the new and improved CF IRP policy (below) states that a 20% loss may trigger 100% HEA from core.  Looks like the two policies are out of synch. I thought my HEA application is a nightmare, now soldiers have to face two different criteria at two different levels?  Good luck.  If any one can shed some light on this, I'd love to find out what is going on with this policy mismatch.

The following info is from the recent version of the CBI 208.97 published 1 Sept 2012 http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/cbi_chapter-208_e.asp?sidesection=6  

208.97(2) (Application) This instruction applies in respect of the sale of a principal residence by an officer or non-commissioned member where, as determined by the Chief of the Defence Staff, the housing prices at the member’s place of duty have *decreased by 10%* or more between the date of purchase and the date of sale of the principal residence.

208.97(3) (Sale price lower than adjusted purchase price) An officer or non-commissioned member who is moved at public expense other than locally and sells a principal residence shall be reimbursed 90% of the difference between the sale price and the adjusted purchase price, when the sale price is lower than the adjusted purchase price.

208.97(4) (Sale price lower than current market value) Despite paragraph (3), when the sale price is also lower than the current market value, the Chief of the Defence Staff may limit reimbursement to 90% of the ifference between the current market value and the adjusted purchase price.

208.97(5) (Appraisal) For the purpose of this instruction, the current market value and the value of eligible home improvements shall be determined on the basis of three appraisals by licensed property appraisers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

208.97(6) (Under financial hardship) Despite paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the Chief of the Defence Staff may approve reimbursement to an officer or non-commissioned member in any case that does not meet the criteria of this instruction when the Chief of the Defence Staff considers that the member would suffer undue financial hardship.

The 1 Sept 2012 CF IRP policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2011/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-03-03 is as follows:

8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:

Core benefit

80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and 
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). 

Custom benefit 
In excess of core entitlement.

Personalized benefit 
When all custom funds have been expended.

HEA calculation criteria

Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP. 
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10. 
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA. 
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs: 
identified in the Building Agreement, and 
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a *community   * *where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.*
Depressed market status may be evaluated when:

A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:

Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin. 
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only. 
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid. 
For real estate information: 
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase; 
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months; 
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market; 
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market; 
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market; 
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and 
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years. 
NOTE: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.

More on the definition of community in a future posting.


----------



## captloadie (15 Oct 2012)

So the first thing is that comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges in a sense. Those moved under Section 208, as quoted above, are only those not entitled to a move via IRP (Section 209). So, at the end of the day, the majority of us will still need to depend on the TB to deem an area as a depressed market.


----------



## heavy reader (17 Oct 2012)

Capt Loadie:

That clears it up for me.  Thank you.


----------



## heavy reader (7 Nov 2012)

THE SUMMING UP...


Ref A: http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/documents/Perspectives_May11-e.pdf
B. ATI file # A-2010-00699
C. http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/CS.html#frmCurrentFormID
D. CFIRP 2009 Policy at http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2009/chapter-chapitre-08-eng.asp#art-08-02-13

I have been asked by my Member of Parliament to provide a synopsis of the HEA blanket denial for discussion in the House of Commons and a press release.

As such, I request that anyone affected by the denial of 100% HEA out of core (i.e. equity losses above $15 K) let me know your circumstances and if you are willing to be identified or not (your choice). I may be reached at i_win@live.ca or (902) 466-4339.

I realize that it has been three years now since this issue began for most. To date, all levels of recourse have resulted in denial. The military grievance system does not have authority over Treasury Board approval, nor is there any (timely) mechanism to have Treasury Board accountable for using a blanket denial of CFIRP entitlements, even when provided with the requisite substantiation (even with CF Ombudsman, CFGBA and CDS recommendations). There does not seem to be any military method to provide "relief", although the CF is sympathetic to this situation. The same issue affects relocating RCMP members.

For those not affected, we are a small group of CF members who, have been denied our CFIRP entitlements. One major stumbling block is that a solution; in the words of Treasury Board has not been pursued “given other more pressing priorities and TBS conviction that there simply isn’t a big enough problem to justify a submission for a policy change.”  (Ref A). The issue has been identified to the following institutions: DCBA, DGCB, CFGBA, CF Ombudsman, Member of Parliament, Minister of National Defence, CDS, President of the Treasury Board (Tony Clement), Jack Harris (NDP National Defence Critic). To date there has been no medial release or publication on this issue as all possible methods of resolution were conducted by affected members (to no effect).

The second major issue (in most applications for 100% HEA cases) is the definition of the term "community".  Community is the term used in the 2009 and 2012 CFIRP policy (Ref D) . It is not defined by Treasury Board, and in their denials of the HEA applications, Treasury Board has swapped out the term "community" with "area". This lumping together of towns with larger areas has resulted in changes of average housing loss to go from the requisite average 20% loss threshold to 2-3% loss. This is the basis for the majority of the denials, and a major issue.

A thorough review of the term community (provided in applications), have approved GOC, Legal and academic definitions of community, none of which could possibly be construed as taken by Treasury Board to include an area.  Further, smaller affected towns have been identified as "communities" officially by Statistics Canada as well as other Federal Agencies, including the Treasury Board. The president of the Treasury Board himself (Tony Clement) identified community as "being as large as a town" as an upper limit to a community.

Between 2007-2010 there have been 146 applications for 100% HEA (Ref B).  Treasury Board has approved none, using a blanket decision that there are "no depressed markets in Canada". Note that the majority of cases were after 2010 and likely quite large.

The effects on each family are different; however by reviewing some of the HEA Grievances at the CFGB Website (Ref C) this issue is systemic, has resulted in losses over $100,000 in some cases, as well as multiple family, health, mental health and career issues.

I can assure everyone reading this message that the problem of loosing 2 years of after tax pay, certainly has affected our family in ways I could not have ever imagined. Fellow affected members have (as a result) divorced, declared bankruptcy and had career action.

As there are two main types of solution remaining, I am seeking your input to assist the Government of Canada to provide either the correct and intended Home Equity Assistance entitlement (retroactively), or a method of relief for those who have been negatively affected. These solutions may take two main options:

1. Addressing the issue in the House of Commons for debate and resolution, in an open and accountable forum; or

2. Federal Court of Canada litigation (a legal team has expressed interest in supporting our cause). 

I would ask for your input and assistance with option 1 as it seems a logical next step in the resolution of this National Issue.  My MP is willing to take this to the House of Commons on our behalf and requests that I collate the following:

Briefing Note;
Number of affected individuals (awaiting ATI return); and
Points of contact for affected families willing to speak on the subject.

That being said, I will be providing my name and particulars as well as collating a BN for the MP. 

Whether you have a stake in this fight or not, I would implore everyone (military or civilian) reading this chain to *make their opinions known to their Member of Parliament*.  Contact information for your MP may be found at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=current


Remembering that this is an approved entitlement, not something extra we are seeking.  Realistically, that a solder has to take action over three years, to get his approved entitlements is outrageous. By Treasury Board changing the terms of the policy retroactively in order to deny all applications defeats the purpose of the CFIRP, the NJC Relocation directive and the laws of justice.


Thank you.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Nov 2012)

Update:

The sole decision maker for approving 100% HEA out of core for military relocation is in the news again. See the following article:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/10/26/court-hears-federal-government-relocation-contracts-tainted-in-travesty-of-lies


----------



## heavy reader (24 Nov 2012)

Well, its been a long and difficult road, but there may be some movement on this issue.  It is going to be discussed in Parliament during  question period next week (likely Tuesday).

I can onlly hope that some good comes of this.  

A webpage for HEA has been set up buy an affected member detailing the issues.  I'll try to find a link and post it here.

Keep strong and don't give up...ever!


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Nov 2012)

Unfortunately Question Period is just like a kindergarten class, but hopefully it starts to gain some traction in the media.


----------



## heavy reader (24 Nov 2012)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Well, its been a long and difficult road, but there may be some movement on this issue.  It is going to be discussed in Parliament during  question period next week (likely Tuesday).
> 
> I can onlly hope that some good comes of this.
> 
> ...



Here's the link http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Home-Equity-AssistanceCFIRP-discussion-4729718/about


----------



## heavy reader (27 Nov 2012)

Share Your Experiences of Being a CF Family
HALIFAX MFRC Piers Military Community Centre, Windsor Park Building #106 The CF Ombudsman’s staff are interested in meeting with CF families to examine the challenges that are unique to military families.
The MFRC is seeking a cross-section of CF families (such as dual service, same sex, married and remarried etc.) to share their perspectives and experiences. Childcare will be provided and a light dinner will be served. 

Tuesday, December 11 & 
Wednesday, December 12, 5:30pm to 7:30pm

If you would like to participate please contact: Teresa MacDonald 427-7778  NLT 5 Dec 12 or Teresa.MacDonald@forces.gc.ca

I will be present on the 11th looking for updates on the systemic HEA issue from the Ombudsman's office.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2012)

Is this something that will be done across the country? Sounds like a great initiative.


----------



## newwifey (27 Nov 2012)

If you are a member of a military family or involved in supporting military families, 18 years or older, and interested in sharing your perspectives and experiences regarding the modern Canadian Forces family, the team would like to hear from you. People can call Toll Free: 1-888-828-3626 (during normal business hours) Local (National Capital Region): 613 996-8077 or email CFFamily-FamilleFC@forces.gc.ca to connect with the research team. 

The Ombudsman Pierre Daigle is asking people to phone or e-mail his office with their name and coordinates and a member of their team will be in touch within 24 hours. He notes discretion is assured based on Privacy Act tenets.

He encourages people to assist the team in truly reflecting the realities modern military families face. Insisting feedback can help make a positive difference for the Canadian Forces families of today and tomorrow.

Tentative Dates are as follows:

Halifax Nov 18-21 
Gagetown Nov 21-23
Esquimault Nov 18-21
Winnipeg Nov 21-23
Trenton Nov 19-21 
Bagotville Nov 26-29
Valcartier Nov 26-29 
Petawawa Dec 3-5
Edmonton Dec 4-7


----------



## heavy reader (27 Nov 2012)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Share Your Experiences of Being a CF Family
> HALIFAX MFRC Piers Military Community Centre, Windsor Park Building #106 The CF Ombudsman’s staff are interested in meeting with CF families to examine the challenges that are unique to military families.
> The MFRC is seeking a cross-section of CF families (such as dual service, same sex, married and remarried etc.) to share their perspectives and experiences. Childcare will be provided and a light dinner will be served.
> 
> ...



Note that Halifax is confirmed as 11-12 December.  You may want to verify the dates for the other cities.


----------



## newwifey (27 Nov 2012)

His website today is showing the following dates:
Upcoming Visits: 

Bagotville (QC), November 26-29

Valcartier (QC), November 26-28

Petawawa (ON), December 03-05

Edmonton (AB), December 04-07

Halifax (NS), December 10-13

His webpage and the MFRC's are doing pretty good keeping it utd.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Dec 2012)

This item is currently being discussed in the house of commons at http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/timebandit/powerbrowserlive.aspx?ContentEntityId=9829&EssenceFormatID=425

Listen in!


----------



## heavy reader (7 Dec 2012)

Ref A: Transcripts of the House of Commons (Hansard), 5 Dec 2012 at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5924732#Int-7839896
B. Bill C-41 at http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=4620437&Mode=1
C. Bill C-15 at http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=5156729&Mode=1


From the house of commons yesterday (ref A):

 "Mr. Jack Harris: ...    The other principal area that we have concern with, although there are several others, is the grievance procedure. The grievance procedure is unwieldy. Some improvements have been made. The military people who file grievances have the right to grieve. We put forth amendments to have civilian representation on the grievance board. Most of the grievances are really of an employment nature as opposed to a military nature and could be properly handled with the right kind of civilian oversight and participation. However, the government continues to fill the military board with military personnel, mostly of the officer class, and it is a long and unwieldy procedure. 


    The CDS, in the end, has the final say, except there is one major problem. The CDS can say that he or she agrees with an individual's grievance but then, if the individual is complaining that the $1,500 moving allowance that he or she was supposed to get was denied to him or her, the CDS, who is the final authority, may agree that the person is entitled to the money but the $1.500 cannot be awarded. What happens then? The grievance then has to go to lawyers at the Department of Justice to determine whether the person has a legal case against the Crown for the $1,500. What do we have that for? It makes no sense. 


    A good example that has been going on for some time is the home equity allowance that military members are entitled to. If they move from one place to another and lose money on the sale of their home, they are entitled to have that reimbursed from the military. Guess what? Somebody in Treasury Board has decided there is no such thing as a depressed market for real estate in Canada and people who have lost between $70,000 and $80,000 on the resale of their home can only get a maximum of $1,500. Despite the Chief of the Defence Staff agreeing with the grievers and saying that it is wrong and that they should get the money, it is no dice. It cannot happen because, despite the final say going to the Chief of the Defence Staff, we have the lawyers, the Treasury Board and others holding this up."

and also relevent is the following exerpt:

"    Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): ...Even though it is a step in the right direction, Bill C-15 falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial and grievance systems and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. For this reason, I stand today to raise my opposition to the bill and highlight some important shortcomings, which, should the bill pass second reading, I hope will be addressed in committee.


    I will give a bit of background on the bill. The bill comes as a response to the report of former chief justice Antonio Lamer of the Supreme Court presented on the independent review of the National Defence Act in 2003. The report included 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal. Thus far, however, only 28 of those recommendations have been implemented.


    We have seen Bill C-15 (Ref C) before in various forms, first Bills C-7 and C-45, which died on the order paper due to prorogation in 2007 and the election in 2008. Then, in 2010, Bill C-41 (Ref B) was introduced to respond to the 2003 Lamer report and a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It outlined provisions related to military justice, such as sentencing reform, military judges and committees, summary trials, court martial panels, the provost marshal unlimited provisions related to the grievance and military police complaints process. 


    Bill C-15 is quite similar to the version of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, sadly, regrettably, disappointingly, whatever adverb we want to use, what is important is that the amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last Parliament are not included in the current version, Bill C-15. Important and necessary amendments that would alleviate some women and men of our armed forces of undue hardship in their lives after the military are excluded in this version."


----------



## heavy reader (12 Dec 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> His website today is showing the following dates:
> Upcoming Visits:
> 
> Bagotville (QC), November 26-29
> ...



Went to the Ombudsman's meeting last night at the MFRC (Halifax).  Stated my situation in the hopes that it will get into the Ombudsman's annual report.  Knowing the process, any changes as a result of the Ombudsman's report will likely affect those going into an HEA situation, and not retroactively assisting those who have already suffered.  Thoughts?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2012)

It would be too much of an admin burden to seek out everyone to retro pay them. If they do fix it, they may allow you to apply again after they've redetermined which areas were depressed markets.


----------



## Occam (12 Dec 2012)

I can think of one particular case that the Ombudsman got involved with that resulted in the CF members getting money back after the wrong had already been committed - http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/ma-ir/app-ann-01-eng.asp


----------



## dapaterson (12 Dec 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> I can think of one particular case that the Ombudsman got involved with that resulted in the CF members getting money back after the wrong had already been committed - http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/ma-ir/app-ann-01-eng.asp



Bad example.  Those whiners never had any entitlement; never provided information requested by DCBA but rather went to the Ombudsman.  It was a bad recommendation by the Ombudsman.  (Then) Col Colwell's letter does a great job of laying out the facts - which were not "students hard done by" but rather "Rules were in place, not followed, and we asked for more info to try to help but no one shared information with us."


----------



## Occam (12 Dec 2012)

I didn't get into the merits of the decision; I only stated that the Ombudsman successfully obtained redress long after the perceived wrong was committed.


----------



## heavy reader (14 Dec 2012)

Good morning all:

Knowing that those affected are already in a financial hole, there's going to be a financial need to get resolution to this issue (unless Santa brings a pro-bono legal team down the chimney).
Looks like this ongoing issue will have to go to court after all.  I've talked with local legal office and they indicate that a Judicial Review will cost between $15,000 and $20,000. This would then be followed by a class action.

*I am committing $1,000 of my Canadian Forces Severance Pay* for the legal action. Of course, the more people willing to contribute, the less each needs to kick in. 

I would ask that anyone reading this take 5 minutes to chat between members to help identify anyone else who has been denied 100% HEA. Please have them contact me at i_win(at)live.ca.  This will help be determine a rough number of those affected, and possibly contribute to legal cost sharing.

Failing this...I'm open to suggestions.

I want to also take the time to encourage all those suffering from HEA loss to take a break from this over the holidays and spend some time enjoying life a little. Personnally, this has been all consuming. Don't give up and reach out if you need some help.

Merry Christmas to all of you (less the Treasury Board)


----------



## heavy reader (14 Dec 2012)

Another HEA redress just posted in time for the holidays at http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2012-103.html.

Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012-10-12 


The grievor, a Regular Force officer, was posted to Edmonton in 2007 where he purchased a house. Upon being posted away from Edmonton two years later, he incurred a significant financial loss on the sale of his house.

The grievor complained that the denial of his request for 100% of the equity loss he incurred on the sale of his home was unreasonable and was not within the intent and spirit of the Canadian Forces (CF), Department of National Defence and Government of Canada relocation programs that are designed to support soldiers and their families as they are posted to meet the needs of the service. As redress, the grievor requested that he be reimbursed the outstanding balance of his loss, $64,900, from his Core funding envelope. Failing that, the grievor asked that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) refer his case to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL) for consideration and reimbursement as a claim against the crown.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision because the Director General Compensation and Benefits, the IA in this matter, could not render a decision in the required timeframe and the grievor declined to grant an extension.

The grievor purchased his home in 2007 for $449,900 and, upon posting in 2009, sold it for $370,000, an equity loss of $79,900. *After being reimbursed $15,000 from his Core funding envelope, the grievor still had an equity loss of $64,900* (Emphasis added). The grievor indicated his total equity loss on the sale to be approximately 18.5% and estimated that there had been a market decline of approximately 18.2% in the Edmonton area. He acknowledged that those figures were below the 20% decline required by the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) provisions of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) for 2009 in order to be considered for 100% reimbursement. However, he argued that since he was not a realtor he should not be expected to confirm whether the value of real estate in his community did in fact fall by 20% or more, nor could he expect a realtor to provide him with such a detailed analysis for free. The grievor argued that the current CF IRP HEA provisions are not adequate to address the modern real estate market and that not granting his request would place his family in financial hardship.

The Board found that the CF IRP only provides for reimbursement of up to a $15,000 loss on the sale of a home unless a CF member can show that the sale was in a depressed market area with a decline of “more than 20%”. The grievor calculated the market decline to be less than the 20% required for 100% reimbursement of his equity loss. Therefore, the Board found that the grievor had been correctly treated in accordance with the HEA provisions of the CF IRP 2009.

Although the Board found that the grievor had been provided with all the HEA benefits to which he was entitled under the CF IRP 2009, it could not say that the grievor had been treated fairly. *In fact, the Board considered the policy in this regard to be shamefully and woefully inadequate. The Board observed that it had commented on this issue several times over the past two years and now considered the HEA issue to be so serious that it demanded the personal and immediate attention of the CDS, perhaps with the assistance of the Minister.* (emphasis added).

Regarding the grievor’s request for the CDS to forward his file to DCCL, the Board did not support the request, finding that the grievor’s situation was directly addressed by Treasury Board (TB) approved policy and that any DCCL payment would appear to be circumventing approved TB policy. 

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Pending


*So now there is a situation where this HEA issue is known by the troops, CDS, CFGB, DCBA, DGCB, the Ombudsman, Parliament, the Minister. Why then, do affected soldiers need to take this up in federal court at great expense to get justice? Especially, when this issue has been raised for several years as causing crushing debt?*

Welcome to the HEA club, CF grievor # 2012-103, spare some change for a lawyer?


----------



## heavy reader (3 Jan 2013)

Soldiers face financial hardship in housing disagreement with Ottawa http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/03/soldiers-face-financial-hardship-in-housing-disagreement-with-ottawa/
by Murray Brewster on Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:52pm - 0 Comments


OTTAWA – At least 146 military families have suffered severe financial hardship because National Defence and the federal Treasury Board differ in their interpretation of an assistance program, federal documents show.

The disagreement involves a home-equity assistance program available to members of the military who move frequently and run the risk of taking a bath on sales of their properties.

Compensation is supposed to be available when a member is required to transfer and sells a home in a depressed housing market, but the two departments are odds over the definition of market.

Internal records show that between 2007 and 2010, 146 applications involving tens of thousands of dollars each were rejected by the Treasury Board, despite having the support of National Defence.

Military officials have been arguing for years without success for the policy to be tweaked.

The controversy surfaces just weeks after Defence Minister Peter MacKay forced an end to a similar dispute between his department and Treasury Board, when the agency that controls federal purse strings held up improved insurance payouts to reservists who lose limbs on duty.

It also comes just days after MacKay capped rent increases for newer members of the military, who live on bases across the country.

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris the situation is shocking and must be demoralizing for those in those in uniform.

“The soldier has no choice but to move,and he’s taking a loss that’s been imposed on him by the military,” Harris said Thursday.

“They have a policy that says he’s to be reimbursed, yet he’s not. This is incompetence in following through on a policy that, first of all, makes sense, that has an element of justice in it because of the demands of the military.”

He said he believes situations like this “stick in the craw of members of the military, who are constantly being told by the politicians on the government side of the House that, ‘We support our troops.’”

But Harris added: “When the rubber hits the road on a cash thing like this, they fail to follow through.”

National Defence was asked for comment in mid-December and did not respond until late Thursday after the story appeared online.

In an email, spokeswoman Laura MacIntyre restated the government’s policy and hinted about potential changes, but said she couldn’t talk about them because of cabinet secrecy.

In the meantime, MacIntyre said the government could only offer advice to financially strapped families.

“Resources are available to CF members to assist them in making educated decisions when purchasing or selling a home,” she wrote.

Since 2009, Treasury Board has imposed a strict interpretation on who can qualify for full home equity assistance.

The documents show defence officials expressing concern about the “high rate” of rejections.

It all hinged on the definition of a “depressed market,” where the two government departments have differing interpretation of what constitutes a community.

When an application is approved, the member is entitled to a full reimbursement of their equity, but if it is rejected then the maximum payout is only $15,000 regardless the loss.

Officials at National Defence, in the compensation and benefits branch, tried to find a way around the impasse, suggesting the rejection payment cap, which has not be adjusted since 1999, be increased to reflect increased housing prices.

“I’m not sure how we would calculate the change in value, but keeping the same basic policy construct just with updated figures would seem more equitable and reasonable than selectively trying to make value decisions on individual cases,” wrote Lt.-Col Leslie Jones, military director of compensation and benefits, in an Aug. 13, 2009, email.

Meanwhile, several military families say they’re barely keeping their heads above water.

“I cannot make ends meet any more, and we’re in a financial spiral,” said Maj. Marcus Brauer, who is stationed in Halifax, and has fought for three years to resolve his own claim.

Brauer has moved more than five times in his 24 years with the air force, and lost $73,000 when he left Edmonton for the East Coast two years ago. He says his family is losing $2,000 a month carrying the debt burden, which has included higher interest and insurance costs because they have less equity

He’s appealed through the Canadian Forces grievance system, and even won the backing of former chief of defence staff, retired general Walt Natynczyk.

Military ombudsman Pierre Daigle described the home equity assistance program as an area of “serious concern” in his report to Parliament last spring. His office had investigated a number of complaints.

“Many of these circumstances are beyond the control of Canadian Forces members and can have severe and long-lasting financial and personal consequences,” the report said.

“The ombudsman’s office is concerned by the financial losses and the resulting distress being placed on military members and their families as a result of relocation.”

The Treasury Board policy remains unchanged.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2013)

From CTV News:

"Internal records show that between 2007 and 2010, 146 applications involving tens of thousands of dollars each were rejected by the Treasury Board, despite having the support of National Defence."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-families-pushed-to-financial-ruin-as-defence-treasury-board-disagree-1.1099962


----------



## McG (3 Jan 2013)

Hopefully something positive comes of this.


----------



## dimsum (4 Jan 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> Hopefully something positive comes of this.



I hope so too, but I won't hold my breath on this.  As ERC states regularly, Canadian public support is a mile long and an inch deep.  Once we're out of the spotlight, we get forgotten.  

Besides, I suspect most of the population think we don't pay taxes and get everything for free anyways, so they'd have little sympathy for us losing on a house due to postings.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2013)

They'll just point to the fact that they made PMQs cheaper in Cold Lake! No mention that in most bases, there's a huge waiting list for PMQs and the ones they have are run down and 60 years old with no upgrades.


----------



## heavy reader (5 Jan 2013)

For general information, related access to information requests can be found at: 

https://drive.google.com/?tab=Xo&authuser=0#folders/0Bxa9wYMnuy2kQXdPcnBhQUVWQ0k


----------



## heavy reader (7 Jan 2013)

Good morning all:

In order to move forward on resolving the systemic denial of 100% Home Equity Assistance, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board is looking for decision letters from Treasury Board Secretariat.  If you are willing to provide me with these, I will forward them to the OPI at CFGB.  Please use private message to contact me.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Jan 2013)

New article this am: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Military+ombudsman+appeals+defence+chief+over+home+equity/7791280/story.html

"OTTAWA - Canada's military ombudsman is appealing to the new defence chief to intervene on behalf of Armed Forces families who've been forced to swallow large home-equity losses after being transferred.

Pierre Daigle has written to Gen. Tom Lawson, saying his office has received "numerous complaints" about the home-equity assistance program.

The Canadian Press reported last week at least 146 military families faced financial hardship between 2007 and 2010 after being rejected for full compensation of losses when they were required to sell their homes in depressed markets.

The ombudsman looked at more recent data and concluded something must be done about the differing interpretations of federal policy when it comes to compensating soldiers for a mandatory transfer.

It is a growing problem that is eating into morale, Daigle said Tuesday.

"Money talks," the ombudsman said in an interview.

"When you sign on the dotted line for unlimited liability, you prepare to give your life to serve your country, you don't expect to be fighting a bureaucracy and administrative processes like that. It is not right."

The National Defence policy on relocation, written 20 years ago and largely unrevised since 1999, is outdated and the subject of complaints at every base Daigle has visited.

"While the average price of a house has tripled since then (as per statistics from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.), the benefits under the policy have not been amended to more adequately respond to the needs of Canadian Forces members and their families," Daigle wrote in a letter last month to Lawson.

The letter and Daigle's comments came as news to Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office.

"Minister MacKay was not copied on this correspondence," said spokeswoman Paloma Aguilar.

She said the benefit is long-standing, and the Harper government has taken other action to ease the burden on military members, most notably limiting rent increases for base housing.

"The housing assistance benefit guarantees that Canadian Armed Forces members and their families are protected from a loss on their home if they are forced to move because of relocation. Thousands of Canadian Armed Forces members and their families have received support from this benefit."

Since the 1990s, the military has encouraged members of the Forces to live off base, buy property and build equity for their retirement, the ombudsman said.

But forced transfers, especially since the onset of the economic downturn in 2008, have eroded — and in some cases destroyed — those nest eggs.

"Times are tough for everybody," Daigle said.

"But what we demand of military people in this country we don't demand the same for the rest. If you're told you go to one place to do that job, and you've got to be loyal and agree to that, why would you pick up the bill at the end?"

Since the early 1990s, compensation is paid when a military member is required to transfer and sells a home in a depressed housing market, one where prices have dropped by 20 per cent.

But National Defence and the federal Treasury Board are at odds over how they define certain housing market boundaries, a dispute that has led to an increasing number of applications being rejected.

Military officials have been arguing since 2009, without success, for the policy to be rewritten.

When an application is approved, the member is entitled to a full reimbursement of their equity. If it is rejected, the maximum payout is $15,000 regardless of the loss.

No one at National Defence was immediately available to comment, but last week a spokeswoman said the department does what it can to help military members make educated financial choices."

*My comments on this:

From the policy, the 100% HEA is an entitlement, not a benefit.

The story identifies an increasing number of applications being denied...how about 100% of them.  Between 2007-2010, all 146 applications were denied. This does not include those since 2010.

WRT the policy: I have ATI requests which identify TBS does not have a definition of community.

As far as the assistance to military families: All sources of assistance were denied to me in my case as the issue was above their $5,000 max limit. The only assistance has been from social assistance and the MFRC! SISIP and the CoC recommended bankruptcy!*


----------



## captloadie (9 Jan 2013)

Heavy Reader,
Have you checked in with anyone from Comox? I was speaking to one of my Sgt's who is still trying to sell his house there, and will be taking a loss greater than the 95%/15K limit. When he spoke to IRP in Comox, they told him that in the last two years, all but one of the 100% HEA claims were approved. I was surprised to hear this, so I asked him to check into it again, just to make sure he is getting all the correct info before he finalizes his sale.

I wonder whether a HEA program that you had to opt into would ever float. Conditions would be that something like all losses would be reimbursed 100%, but any equity made off the sale of a current home would need to be put toward a member's new home, or returned to the Receiver General (there being exceptions for outcans, isolated posts, etc.). Or instead of returning the money to the receiver general, the member waives the right to reimbursement for any sale related fees on the next posting.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Jan 2013)

A. http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/documents/Perspectives_May11-e.pdf
B. http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/English/2011-025.html
C. DCBA 5080-1-57156(SSO CBGS) 15 Sep 2010 
D. CFGBA Canadian Forces File No: 5080-1-10-B-57156, 29 Apr 2011 
E. Letter to DCCL, 5 Nov 2012 
F. Letter TBS-DCBA (17 Jul 2012) 
G. E-mail DCBA-CFGBA 5 Jul 2012 
H. E-mall from LCol Gash (DCBA)  31 Jul 2012


Capt Loadie:

As the news stories on this subject have gone national, horrific stories of loss are coming to me from all over Canada, including those who are in a position to loose this posting season. I have an ATI request in to get the numbers from 2010 to now, but I can confirm that between 2007-2010, there were 146 applications for 100% HEA and 146 applications were denied.  However, if/when this goes to trial it is important for any affected individuals to apply for the 100% HEA anyways. Upon initial application for 100% HEA, I was disuaded from applying both by the IRP representative and BOR as "no one gets approved for HEA". This is not an approved procedure to discourage people from applying for an entitlement.

DCBA did not forward my (and other) application to TBS, contrary to the 2009 CFIRP policy - "I find that the DGCB/DCBA Adjudication section contravened TBS policy by not submitting the grievor's HEA application to TBS for approval of 100 percent HEA reimbursement from Core" (Ref D).

As stated by CFGBA, "Further, I would note that the use of the imperative "will" in the CF IRP policy directing how submissions are to be made does not provide DGCB with the option to deny requests on her own authority. The DGCB has clearly indicated that "the CFIRP directive represented TBS approved policy and that the Department had no authority to amend such a policy ... " It seems somewhat ironic that DGCB would deny applications on the basis that TBS policy cannot be changed by the Department while failing to follow that same policy. The determination of depressed market applications is clearly the purview of the TBS and cannot be suborned by the DGCB." (Ref D).

As mentioned by the DGCFGA analyst, the CFGB has previously made a systemic recommendation regarding the need to have the HEA program reviewed. In a recent decision,the CDS agreed and directed DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TBS with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale of a residence to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. It is therefore not necessary for me to repeat this systemic recommendation, but given the prospect of further similar grievances due to the current trends in the real estate market, I am hopeful that this matter will be treated as a priority by both the CDS and DGCB." (Ref D). To date there has been no evidence of this provided through ATI requests. The Sept 2012 CFIRP policy on 100% HEA reamins unchanged, and "community" undefined, setting up future applications for failure.  Most significantly, even though directed by the CDS through the Grievance Decisions, DCBA refused to work with TBS to rectify the situation. I revcieved an e-mail from DGCB (21 Jul 2012)  *"I will address your query with respect to if "DGCB will be working with TBS to resolve this issue". The short answer is no, as DGCB is not aware of any outstanding issue that needs to be resolved.  TBS completed an analysis of your file which was based on Bon Accord as part of the greater Edmonton area and provided an appropriate response accordingly.  You have received a final answer from TBS.  This issue is considered closed from our perpsective."*

The CFGBA stated that "I realize that the word "community" is not defined by the policy, and that the CDS has recognized this and asked DGCB to work with TBS to rectify this deficiency. However, for the purpose of this case, Bon Accord must certainly be said to be a community all its own, with a Mayor and 1500 citizens, all living some 40 kilometres distant from Edmonton. The grievor has presented a convincing case showing how prices had dropped by more than 20 percent.  In my view, the DGCB did not follow the TBS policy in this case. There ought to have been a submission to TBS and, given the grievor's circumstances and the enormity of the loss, one would have thought DGCB would have been advocating vigorously on behalf of the grievor." (Ref D).


As for an "opt in" possibility, this is currently available in the US markets as Home Equity Insurance and could be a feasable solution, but would require some research to incorporate into current policy.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Jan 2013)

HEA Policies over the ages:

Pre 1999:

Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP), operated for three years as a government-wide project to try to minimize the losses incurred by homeowners due to market fluctuations upon relocation. Although the GHSP ceased in 1999.

2000: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/irpp/pdf/aps2000_e.pdf 

Home Equity Assistance

Members who sell their home at a loss may be reimbursed up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, however, may be claimed separately from the Customized component.
•Core – Members shall be reimbursed 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15,000; and
•Customized - Members may claim any remaining losses by using any available funds from the Funding envelope.
Warning – Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA prior-approval to qualify for this benefit.

Capital Improvements Customized

Members may be reimbursed for capital improvements utilizing funds from the Customized Funding envelope. Capital Improvements shall be reimbursed when the member actually incurs a loss on the sale of their home after eligible capital improvements have been included in the adjusted
purchase price.

Example: Purchase cost is $100,000. Capital Improvements are $10,000.
Sale price is $100,000. In this example, the member would not qualify for Home Equity Assistance, however, since the loss is based on the adjusted purchase price including capital improvements, the member would be able to claim $10,000. However, if the purchase price were $90,000 and the sale
price was $100,000, there would be no loss on the sale of the home and therefore, the member could not claim any Capital Improvements.

2001: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/irpp/pdf/aps2001_e.pdf 

Home Equity Assistance

Members who sell their home at a loss may be reimbursed up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, however, may be claimed separately from the Enhanced Core/Customized components.
•Basic Core – Members shall be reimbursed 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15,000; and
•Enhanced Core/Customized – Members may claim any remaining losses by using any available funds from the Funding envelope.
Warning – Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA prior-approval to qualify for this benefit.
Note: Deferred Maintenance: Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.

Example: Routine inspection of member’s residence reveals that furnace must be replaced. In such cases, if the member in lieu of replacing the furnace at his own cost reduces the asking price of the residence, such reduction will not qualify as Home Equity Assistance.
Note: The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following:
•costs identified in the Building Agreement;
•costs for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).

2002: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/irpp/pdf/aps2002A_e.pdf 

Home Equity Assistance

Members who sell their home at a loss may be reimbursed up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, however, may be claimed separately from the Enhanced Core/Customized components.
-Basic Core – Members shall be reimbursed 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15,000; and
-Enhanced Core/Customized – Members may claim any remaining losses by using any available funds from the Funding envelope.
Warning – Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA prior-approval to qualify for this benefit.

Note: Deferred Maintenance: Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.

Example: Routine inspection of member’s residence reveals that furnace must be replaced. In such cases, if the member in lieu of replacing the furnace at his own cost reduces the asking price of the residence, such
reduction will not qualify as Home Equity Assistance.

Note: The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following:
costs identified in the Building Agreement;
costs for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).

2003/2004 : http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/CFIRP_Main_Policy_APS_2003_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=99#General 

Home Equity Assistance:

Members who sell their home at a loss may be reimbursed up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.

Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, however, may be claimed separately from the Custom Funding Element.

Core

Members shall be reimbursed 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15K

Custom

Members may claim any remaining losses by using any available funds

Warning - Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit.

Note: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE: Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.

Example: Routine inspection of member's residence reveals that furnace must be replaced. In such cases, if the member in lieu of replacing the furnace at this own cost reduces the asking price of the residence, such reduction will not qualify as Home Equity Assistance.

Note: The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following: 
	Costs identified in the Building Agreement; 
	Costs for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement). 
Personalized

When all Custom Funds have been expended

2004/2005: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/CFIRP_Main_Policy_APS_2004_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=99 

11.16 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

Members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price.

Core Benefit
	Members are entitled to reimbursement for 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15K.
Custom Benefit
	Members may claim any remaining losses, from funds available in their Custom Funding Formula.
Personalized Benefit
	When all Custom funds have been expended.
Notes:
	Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CF IRP
	Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, but may be claimed separately as a Custom Benefit.
	Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit.
	Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
	The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following costs:
	- identified in the Building Agreement;
- for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).

2005/2006: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/pdf/CFIRP05/EA0_e.pdf 

11.16 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

Members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price. 
Core Benefit 
• Members are entitled to reimbursement for 80% of all losses up to a maximum of $15K. 

Custom Benefit 
• Members may claim any remaining losses, from funds available in their Custom Funding Formula. 

Personalized Benefit 
• When all Custom funds have been expended. 

Notes: 
• Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CF IRP 
• Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, but may be claimed separately as a Custom Benefit. 
• Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. 
• Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA. 
• The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following costs: 
- identified in the Building Agreement; 
- for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement). 



2006/2007: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/Policy_Clarifications/Chapters_1_to_14.doc 

11.16 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

Members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price under the specific funding envelope as follow:

Core Benefit
•	Reimbursement for 80% of the loss.  The maximum is $15K.

Custom Benefit
•	Any remaining losses from funds available in their Custom Funding Formula when members chose to use custom benefit for this purpose.

Personalized Benefit
•	When all Custom funds have been expended.

NOTE:
•	Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CF IRP
•	Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA, but may be claimed separately as a Custom Benefit.
•	Properties selling for less than 95% of the appraised value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. 
•	Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA. 
•	The original purchase price for new home construction consists of the following costs:
-	identified in the Building Agreement;
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).

2007/2008: No change

2008/2009: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/pdf/CFIRP_policy_A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001-1_Apr-08_e.pdf 

Equity Assistance (HEA)

As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:
Core benefit
• 80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
• 100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit 
In excess of core entitlement.

Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.

HEA calculation criteria
• Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
• Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
• Any reductions of the purchase price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
• The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs: identified in the Building Agreement, and for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy
(when not identified in the Building Agreement).

2009/2010: http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/engraph/download_e.asp?sidesection=2&sidecat=99&docid=175 

8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:

Core benefit
•80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
•100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).

Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.

Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.

HEA calculation criteria
•Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
•Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
•Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
•The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
•identified in the Building Agreement, and
•for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy
(when not identified in the Building Agreement).

Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.

Depressed market status may be evaluated when:
A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:

1. Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.

2. All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital
improvements must be supported by original receipts only.

3. General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market
decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.

4. For real estate information:

a. Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
b. Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
c. Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
d. Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
e. Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
f. Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
g. Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
NOTE: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.

2010/2011 No change

2011/2012 http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/pdf/CFIRP_policy_A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001-1_11-12_e.pdf 

8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)

As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:

Core benefit
•80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
•100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).

Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.

Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.

HEA calculation criteria
•Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
•Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
•Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
•The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
•identified in the Building Agreement, and
•for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).

Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.

Depressed market status may be evaluated when: A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation
Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:
1. Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.

2. All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital
improvements must be supported by original receipts only.

3. General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.

4. For real estate information:
a. Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
b. Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
c. Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
d. Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
e. Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
f. Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
g. Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
NOTE: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.


----------



## heavy reader (11 Jan 2013)

New website for HEA has been created at http://healoss.wordpress.com/.

Post a comment, access completed ATI requests and view decisions.  Get the whole picture before you get posted!


----------



## heavy reader (16 Jan 2013)

I was just thinking how ironic it is that Delisle can get in front of a  judge in a matter of days, while those denied tens of thousands of dollars in entitlements have had to wait over three years!


----------



## heavy reader (17 Jan 2013)

HELP HELP HELP

Our group is seeking anyone who had their community identified as a "Depressed Market" between 1990 and 2012.  If you qualified for the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan (GHSP), HEAP then we could really use your help.  Please contact me at your earliest convenience i_win(at)live.ca 

Your help could help hundreds of short changed military families.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## TCM621 (17 Jan 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that one or two posters here have the impression that if they put $20K worth of work into their home in the way of renovations, etc. that they should recoup all that money as well.  In fact, there are very few improvements that one can do to their home that will guarantee a hundred per cent return for their expenditure.  I am not saying that it will not increase the value of your property, only that it will not increase the value by the same amount as your Reno costs.



As I have learned recently, keeping receipts for the expenditures is rather important. In my case, I have put 20 grand in easy. And that is with me doing all the work. I reno'd a bathroom, added a deck, added a bedroom and other things. I did this for me not for the added value.

However, At this point when I sell my house I will probably lose money overall. I bought the house 8 years ago because I added a kid and renting a bigger Q for the same price as a mortgage seemed dumb to me. At the time, I was looking at an 1100 dollar a month rent in a Q. I bought the cheapest house in Victoria. And I made it better because that is what I wanted to do. 

For the past year, I have been posted away from my family against my will.  That added cost to my life. One LTA a year doesn't really allow you to have a healthy marriage or keep you're kids sane. So I flew back a couple more times on my own dime. I have been adding debt waiting and waiting. So when I was posted again, IR was not an option. Now because the bottom dropped out of the Victoria market for the first time in my memory, all the equity I gained in my house and all the money I put in to the house in improvements is gone. I lost about 100000 on my house in value. If that isn't depressed, I don't know what is. 

I don't expect the military to pay that hundred grand but they could do a little to cushion the blow. Instead they are cutting back on our benefits. I am probably going to have to declare bankrupcy soon because of my losses,  my wife is giving up her good paying job to move with me and rent here being not much less than Victoria yet it has no PLD. A little bit of a cushion would probably keep me a float until I things even out.

Btw. If we were Public Servants we wouldn't have to deal with this. One of the guys I know is a reservist as well as a Civilian employee and his union is rejecting the loss of severence and they are getting a pay raise.


----------



## morgan5 (19 Jan 2013)

I don't think public view of the military is terribly screwed.  I think for whatever reason the media has a problem with trying to evoke a negative view on the military.  I don't know how effective it is.  I am sick of headlines like "soldier charged with X" or "Veteran found doing X"  If these people were mail carriers (unless for mail fraud of course) I doubt the headline would be "Mail carrier pleads guilty to leaving dog in car".  Perhaps a mention of occupation within the story but not right on the headline.  I like to think that civilians can read through this yellow journalism.  Sure there are "bad" soldiers.  Sure their are "bad" truck drivers too though.  

Anyway, regarding to the market value when selling etc.  Most people make a choice to move to gain something, a better job, a better house, a better location.  Few jobs require you to move just in the course of maintaining employment.  Obviously the Members of the CF have a special circumstance here.  It bothers me that people are not being reimbursed for this.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Jan 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They'll just point to the fact that they made PMQs cheaper in Cold Lake! No mention that in most bases, there's a huge waiting list for PMQs and the ones they have are run down and 60 years old with no upgrades.



Its funny you mention this.  It seems to me with how things are changing and the financial cuts to posting benifits and IR ect ect that PMQs are becoming a more attractive option for some.  

Perhaps DND/CFHA should look at expanding PMQs, meaning is it time to start building new ones ?


----------



## Pat in Halifax (19 Jan 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps DND/CFHA should look at expanding PMQs, meaning is it time to start building new ones ?



The whole time I was in Ottawa, this was discussed by many of us (off the record of course). Someone in the know (at CFSU(O)) confided in me the dollar figure to cover off personnel on IR for rent alone and I was amazed. We questioned why DND didn't either buy or lease a couple apartment buildings downtown but then I guess like some* of the landlords, the minute someone finds out it is government, the cost gets artifically inflated.
I think PMQs should indeed be a first choice for us if we know we will be at a location for a fixed period but because (in general) of various problems stemming around age and probably lack of maintenance due to lack of $$$, it is actually the opposite. I am sure some areas are good, but some are borderline 'slumlord' quality.

I also know that, like Dimsum says, unless someone outside the CF knows one of us, the perception is indeed that we do not pay taxes nor into an employee pension fund. Again, I guess each of us educating people in a tactful manner when the opportunity arises is the way around this.

We shall see where all these slashes leave us personnel-wise in 6-8 years. I always thought the unofficial rule was that if you were posted, it should not cost you anything out of pocket-I guess that is gone by the wayside now.

Pat

* Where I stayed, I personally did not experience this and in fact the building manager would have gladly dealt exclusively with CF folks


----------



## Pandora114 (20 Jan 2013)

http://healoss.wordpress.com/ 

This is it in a nutshell...


----------



## 392 (21 Jan 2013)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> We questioned why DND didn't either buy or lease a couple apartment buildings downtown but then I guess like some* of the landlords, the minute someone finds out it is government, the cost gets artifically inflated.



I had heard last year that DND was looking into acquiring (whether it be through construction or purchase / lease) an apartment building just for all the IR pers to alleviate the costs. Don't know how true this is, as I can't even fathom how much it would cost; but even though the up front cost would be enormous, over the long run I would think it would be far, far cheaper.... :stirpot:


----------



## armyvern (22 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Btw. If we were Public Servants we wouldn't have to deal with this. One of the guys I know is a reservist as well as a Civilian employee and his union is rejecting the loss of severence and they are getting a pay raise.




IIRC, it was DND's civilian employees who voted to accept the last round of bargaining and they agreed to a pay raise and also agreed to forego (give up) severance pay. They _are_ public servants.

I'm quite sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Occam (22 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> IIRC, it was DND's civilian employees who voted to accept the last round of bargaining and they agreed to a pay raise and also agreed to forego (give up) severance pay. They _are_ public servants.
> 
> I'm quite sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.



Not to mention that it was PSAC (the largest PS union) that initially voted to forego severance.   I can't speak for any of the other unions, but when discussions were going nowhere between our union and the gov't bargaining team, and they agreed to go to arbitration, the arbitration process gave away our severance despite some pretty solid arguments for keeping it.  Tcm621's friend may just find themselves rejecting the severance cut, but having it imposed anyway by an adjudicator.


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2013)

Ombudsman is now on this:  http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/military+ombudsman+says+must+rethink+relocation+policies+thousands/7890233/story.html


----------



## heavy reader (30 Jan 2013)

New news article on the systemic denial of 100% HEA can be cound at http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Military+ombudsman+says+must+rethink+relocation+policies+thousands/7890233/story.html

A list of supporting docs can be found at http://healoss.wordpress.com/


----------



## heavy reader (30 Jan 2013)

Reference: podcast of the Standing Committee of National Defence   http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/TimeBandit/PowerBrowser_SilverLight.aspx?ContentEntityId=9952&EssenceFormatID=699&date=20130130&lang=en&taid=6

If you have a grievance in the works at the CDS level, you need to listen to the podcast at ref.  In the meeting, it was announced that there is a Privy Council Report authorizing spending authority for the CDS which COULD be used to payout grievances.  

Unfortunately, for all those who have fought the fight, there is no indication that this will be considered retroactively for those who the CDS could not provide relief for previously. The MND eluded to an appeal process, in the case for those denied HCA claimants, looks like its federal court for us!

More details at: http://healoss.wordpress.com/


----------



## heavy reader (30 Jan 2013)

Here's the press release:

http://o.canada.com/2013/01/30/defence-minister-peter-mackay-defends-efforts-to-compensate-military-families-for-financial-losses/


----------



## heavy reader (4 Feb 2013)

New Standing COmmittee on National Defence Minutes available at: 

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/TimeBandit/PowerBrowserLive_SilverLight.aspx?ContentEntityId=9996&EssenceFormatID=693&date=20130228&lang=en&taid=6


----------



## heavy reader (6 Feb 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen: 

May I present...the "smoking gun"

http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/a201200295.pdf

This access to information report was provided just recently.  Enjoy!


----------



## Quellefille (6 Feb 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen:
> 
> May I present...the "smoking gun"
> 
> ...



Wow.  Just.  Wow.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Feb 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen:
> 
> May I present...the "smoking gun"
> 
> ...



Coles notes? That's a lot to read....


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Coles notes? That's a lot to read....



Basically, there are few (if any) depressed markets in Canada.  Not only that, TBS wouldn't provide the analysis info of how they came to some of their conclusions ("not sure what the purpose of providing that information would be" was the quote).

Edit 2:  To remove somewhat personal info.

Edit to add:  And D. Ram Singh needs to stop using "MSN speak" in his emails.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Feb 2013)

Hi PMED Moe,

I was able to get the TBS assessment for this city from an ATI.  It can be found at http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/a201200294.pdf.  I also verified the info they quoted and the variables used. 

It is pretty evident in the ATI, however to save some eye strain, they used data from 2 years earlier, from downtown Edmonton only (not CMA, or Edmonton Area), and used such exemplary sources as blogs and wikipedia to "disprove" the MLS data provided to them.

What did I expect? The same as any other CF relocated member... that we would be entitled to our *entitlements* once we met the criteria.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Feb 2013)

Oh, and by the way, according to the 2 ATI's discussed...and contrary to what everyone has said, there were THREE DEPRESSED MARKETS in Canada!

I wonder why this info was never shared? 

And why is someone going direct to the Program Authority to have their HEA application looked at? 

Who is Maryse Ouellet?

A member of the CF will be on the CBC (The Current) tomorrow morning. You may want to listen in on your way to work.

-Just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean "they" are not out to get you.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Feb 2013)

Thanks for the Coles notes version.

Doesn't surprise me that they are so glib about a massive loss to an individual. I think we need to start moving around TBS employees every 3-5 years from low cost to high cost of living areas and see what happens with the policies then... I bet they start to favour the member.


----------



## Quellefille (6 Feb 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Basically, there are few (if any) depressed markets in Canada.  Not only that, TBS wouldn't provide the analysis info of how they came to some of their conclusions ("not sure what the purpose of providing that information would be" was the quote).
> 
> 
> Edit to add:  And D. Ram Singh needs to stop using "MSN speak" in his emails.



Ram Singh just needs to stop breathing.  I worked for Brookfield for two years.  I did RCMP and Gov't Employee moves.  There is a bias.  I loved my RCMP members but some of them got seriously screwed due to operational requirements.  And the gov't employees got their hands held and their heads patted and their requests approved for exceptional circumstances.  Not to this extent, but the constant call of exceptional circumstances was ridiculous.  it was codespeak for 'They don't move often and therefore don't know better'

Whereas RCMP Cpl. Awesome got transfered twice in one year and lost 100 grand.  He got transfered to one place, bought a house, found out the inspector missed a massive issue and got transferred back.  Had to sell the damned house at a loss or else not be able to keep his job.


----------



## heavy reader (7 Feb 2013)

CBC interview on relocation available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/07/military-relocations.html,


----------



## technophile (22 Feb 2013)

- devils advocate -

I wonder if anyone ever considers giving the profit they made from the sale of a house back to the crown ?


----------



## GnyHwy (22 Feb 2013)

technophile said:
			
		

> - devils advocate -
> 
> I wonder if anyone ever considers giving the profit they made from the sale of a house back to the crown ?



Why the heck would they do that? The crown didn't risk any of their money to buy the house.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Feb 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Why the heck would they do that? The crown didn't risk any of their money to buy the house.



 > But's the other side of the coin.  If we want the Crown to socialize the loss, should the Crown not also share in the gain?


Fundamentally, the base amount needs to be revisited, as it's about 20 years since the $15K amount was set; and house prices have increased significantly since then.  Adjust for the average increase in house prices, and the $15K should grow to about $30K.  That won't solve everyone's problems, but it would certainly shrink the problem space.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, the base amount needs to be revisited, as it's about 20 years since the $15K amount was set; and house prices have increased significantly since then.  Adjust for the average increase in house prices, and the $15K should grow to about $30K.  That won't solve everyone's problems, but it would certainly shrink the problem space.



Great idea, considering most homes in areas where there are military bases, $15k is around 5% of the value.


----------



## heavy reader (22 Feb 2013)

The % issue is one of the larger problems as the relative percentage lost has been harder as house prices increased. However, this forum is mainly discussing the protection of 100% HEA from core when, for communities where an industry has failed, the %loss is over 20% (from time bought to time sold). 

It's a safety net for those souls who get caught in this situation.  It is an entitlement, to ensure families are not pooched.

It will be discussed at the Standing Committee on National Defence on Monday. You can listen in live at http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?contententityid=10099&date=20130225&lang=en


----------



## wesleyd (23 Feb 2013)

I think the way that HEA is calculated as well should be reviewed. It should be based on the required appraisal amount, not on purchase price.

Unless the member is familiar to the rules prior to purchasing a home, they will find out the hard way when they apply for HEA basing their application on market value because they believe that all of the monies they have invested in their home are part of the fair market values, like hardwood floors, new roof etc. And the fact that an appraisal is required. To find out they are SOL because HEA doesn't work that way.

This is how I have seen it happen to several people.

Let's say you are fortunate enough to live in the same place for say five years. ( Hard sea trade sailors are generally a little more fortunate than this, army and airforce can bounce around a lot more than this)

You pay $200k originally and invest about $40k in improvements over five years. The way the HEA is calculated now is if you sold your house for $20000.01 (Unless you have all receipts for upgrades) you have actually made $.01 so therefore no loss has been incurred and you are not entitled to HEA.

I am interested to see if this policy will change. Meanwhile I hope everyone keeps any receipts for any upgrades they make to their house now.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Feb 2013)

I agree that there is much work to do on the HEA policy. I believe you are referring to the capital improvements component of the policy.  

Your best bet is just to keep all receipts, ensure they are within the scope of the policy (i.e. new room, fence etc) and hope like hell the policy doesn't change the year your are posted.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Mar 2013)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> I think the way that HEA is calculated as well should be reviewed. It should be based on the required appraisal amount, not on purchase price.
> 
> Unless the member is familiar to the rules prior to purchasing a home, they will find out the hard way when they apply for HEA basing their application on market value because they believe that all of the monies they have invested in their home are part of the fair market values, like hardwood floors, new roof etc. And the fact that an appraisal is required. To find out they are SOL because HEA doesn't work that way.
> 
> ...



This is pretty much what happened in my case. I made a lot of improvements and spent a lot of money on the house but because my house sold for 25k over what I bought it for in 05, I wasn't eligible. I spent more than 25K on that house. This is the first down turn greater Victoria has had since 1985. When the average house price was 15% what it was at its peak in 2010. 

Also I like how they say they are "corrections" rather than depressions. Corrections is the word stock brokers use instead of losses.


----------



## heavy reader (25 Mar 2013)

The big sell-off:

Folks, I have begun to list my remaining assets on Kijiji in order to take the Treasury Board to court and support my family.  Please take advantage of my situation and buy some stuff.  All prices are negotiable and delivery within Halifax region is available. More will be listed over the coming weeks.

http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-PostersOtherAds-W0QQUserIdZ52355394

Thank you for supporting us.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Mar 2013)

Good luck with the court battle.


----------



## heavy reader (2 Apr 2013)

We have all heard about the issues facing the issues surrounding current and former member of the Canadian Forces. Currently, there is a new threat affecting many Canadian Forces members and their families. These members are suffering from bankruptcy, loss of housing, career implications, mental health issues and failed relationships. All due to denial of one entitlement that has been deemed not important enough to change according to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

For over three years, members have been quietly and patiently going through the bureaucracy hoping that the obvious errors would be corrected by leaders, politicians and staffers. Unfortunately, the only thing that has changed are the people making those bad decisions.

The Policy…

When a member is posted (every 2 years for some families), they are entitled to 100% of the loss of equity on the sale of their home if certain conditions are met. Many members have submitted their applications only to be supported by everyone except the Treasury Board Secretariat. Between 2007-2010 the TBS has used their omnipotent power to:

•	Change definitions after the fact to minimize eligibility;
•	Provide the administrators in the Canadian Forces with a blanket denial so that no one can be approved;
•	Mal administer the policy by applying different standards in different geographic locations;
•	Denied any relief for affected families; and
•	Denied all 146 applications between 2007-2010.


As a result, military families have suffered severe financial effects due to their mandated relocations.

It gets better…

The Canadian Forces Grievance System is in place to resolve issues such as this unless…they have something to do with Treasury Board Policy. Families have spent years in the grievance system only to determine that they could not have been provided any relief by the Chief of Defence Staff.

But there is hope…

Bill C-15 was put in place to try and resolve some of these issues and allow the Chief of Defence Staff the authority to provide relief for his troops, it is still in the works (after 15 years). There is also a Privy Council Order effective 16 Jun 2012 (PCO #2012-0861) however it is not retroactive and does not apply to anything under TBS policy. 

Where do these families stand now…

Without a union, without a public voice, without any influence on Treasury Board members can only apply for a Judicial Review.  Judicial Reviews can cost a great deal ($15,000-$20,000 estimate). Under the law, this is the only option left for these families who are already declaring bankruptcy, using social assistance and suffering a lack of justice. It remains our only hope.


We are members of the Canadian Forces who come from all aspects of military trades and ranks.  What we have in common is that we all followed orders and picked up our families and relocated.   It wasn’t until each family received their next posting that financial issues started to turn into nightmares. 

We have exhausted all methods within our means to resolve this issue however we are out of resources. Our expectation as Canadian Forces members is that we should not be place in a position that leaves us and our families in such an extreme financial situation. We all have served in the CF for many years and we can all agree that we have never had to deal with such an overwhelming financial loss due to a posting.  Our families are still experiencing the severe stress of this crisis and if we are not compensated for our losses we will spend numerous years trying to get out of the debt that we are now in. We have devoted all that we are to our country, do we deserve any less than a government living up to its responsibilities under the law?


Our families have been put into a catch 22 position between the Department of National Defence and Treasury Board Secretariat.  Although evidence of wrongdoing has been found and confirmed by the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, the CF Ombudsman, and Chief of Defence Staff there is no forward movement in this matter. Once the grievance process is concluded, there is no mechanism to have TBS live up to their end of the deal. 

It is unfortunate to say the least that a soldier whose family has been abused by the system has to pay $20,000 to get a chance at justice at the Federal Level.  The rationale for not resolving this issue, in our minds is not good enough:  

"given other more pressing priorities and CTBS conviction that there simply isn't a big enough problem to justify a submission for a policy change."

We as military members are very proud people and this does not come easy asking for support in this matter, but as members of the Canadian Forces we know that the Family is the cornerstone to making us who we are.  Family is everything!

We are looking for help from Canadians to help us bring an end to the suffering of soldiers and their families.  We will take this fight to the next level (Federal Court-Judicial Review), because the Treasury Board does not realize that when they cause pain and hardship to a Canadian Forces family, it strengthens our resolve for justice.

Will you support us?


----------



## stokerwes (4 Apr 2013)

You all have my support, I have been in touch with the Ombudsman several times about this issue and am in the process of filing a grievance. Even though Brookfield, the Ombudsman's Office my CoC and me know it will not be approved, simply because no one has the authority to do so.
I am also in the process of releasing from the CF as since I only moved to my present location in April and I am due to be posted this APS I simply cannot afford another 50K loss. So the CF loses millions in training for essentially maybe 50-80k. That is sound financial planning.
And for anyone that wants to say suck it up, please don't. I have heard it said lived I know how to suck eggs.


----------



## heavy reader (4 Apr 2013)

I applaud you sending in a grievance.  I was told the same thing, but needed to ensure the CDS was aware so that the CoC could indeed support us.  If you want to stay current on this issue, you can join in the discussion at http://healoss.wordpress.com/ or on this site.

Take care of yourself and your family.  Call on me anytime you need support.

Marc


----------



## Occam (4 Apr 2013)

I'm still appalled that quicker action hasn't been taken on this.  Far "smaller" (dollar-wise) issues have gone to the press and the politicians, and have been acted upon in short order.  Why isn't this gaining traction, despite the clearly excellent legwork that's been done to bolster the CF's side of this argument?


----------



## heavy reader (4 Apr 2013)

Occam:

The biggest issue now is that of funding. The research is done, the application for Federal Court is drafted but the one person moving this forward is already financially destroyed. Because the affected members are financially devestated, there is no opportunity to get this to Federal Court (the next and final stage in the resolution of the issue). This is also a clear demonstration, that CF members grieving a TBS controlled policy, cannot get justice as they are financially limited.

I have a few options remaining, and will be taking it to Federal Court regardless, but it would be best if I did not have to disadvantage  my family any further (financially).  Updates are regularly posted to http://healoss.wordpress.com/ which has quite a following and has all media releases, press coverage and a good taste of evidence, but without any assistance it is pretty difficult to get any traction.

I am not very good at fundraising, but I aim to raise about $20,000 in order to get the appropriate legal team on board. Without it, I'm afraid that by taking this case forward as a test case on my own, will not do justice to the affected families. It would be a shame to lose on a technicality. Especially since the issue is so well supported by the CF Ombudsman, CDS, CFGBA, my Member of Parliament and Canadian society.

I hope to have a fundraising webpage up shortly, but need some help. Any one that is willing to help out,* please share this info and help out with fundraising*.   :yellow:

Thank you

Marcus Brauer

Click here to donate:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5NH8P6JTS89D4


----------



## TCM621 (6 Apr 2013)

Have you looked into a crowd sourcing site similar to kickstarter? I am pretty sure there are sites aimed at non commercial ventures such as this.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Apr 2013)

No I haven't,  can anyone help me out with this?

Marcus


----------



## TCM621 (7 Apr 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> No I haven't,  can anyone help me out with this?
> 
> Marcus



Let me do some research and I will get back to you.


----------



## heavy reader (7 Apr 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Let me do some research and I will get back to you.



Thanks TCM


----------



## heavy reader (7 Apr 2013)

TCM:

How does this look?


----------



## TCM621 (9 Apr 2013)

There was nothing there.

I would suggest http://crowdfunding.com/. It is pretty versatile.


----------



## heavy reader (9 Apr 2013)

Here's the site: http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance

Please help us by donating or spreading the word!


----------



## heavy reader (15 Apr 2013)

We are now 10% to our fundraising goal.  Help support the 146 CF Families who were systemically denied their relocation entitlements by Treasury Board!

http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance

We're going all the way with this one.  Thanks to all who have donated to date! :yellow:


----------



## heavy reader (21 Apr 2013)

This last week, I had a gag order placed on me to remove all of my websites and halt all communications on the issue of SYSTEMIC DENIAL OF HOME EQUITY ASSISTANCE ENTITLEMENTS. 

Therefore, I really need everyone to assist in spreading the word for fundraising. If I can't raise the funds, there is no possibility of getting justice on this issue for our family and potentially all 146 other families who were denied.

Fundraising website can be found at http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance

Help me SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and get justice for the HEA entitlements, which the CDS and ombudsman all agreed were broken!!!

Thanks folks.

Marcus


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2013)

Interesting.

Did "they" happen to mention under what part of Canadian Law you were gagged?

I would interested to see how that squares with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2013)

It good be court, or mediator, ordered.......happen all the time with grievances.  Just a thought..........


----------



## dapaterson (21 Apr 2013)

Well, off the top of my head, looking at the QR&Os:

19.09 - USE OF OUTSIDE INFLUENCE FORBIDDEN

No officer or non-commissioned member shall attempt to obtain favourable consideration on any matter relating to the member's service by the use of influence from sources outside the Canadian Forces.

(M)

19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION

(1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):

publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
use that information or document for a private purpose;
publish in any form whatever any military information or the member's views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
publish the member's opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member's superiors;
disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
(3) This article does not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian Forces.

(M)(25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)

19.37 - PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION

(1) Permission for the purposes of article 19.36 (Disclosure of Information or Opinion) may be granted by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other authority as he may designate.

(2) Permission given under paragraph (1):

does not have the effect of endorsing anything said or done by the person to whom it is given;
may not be referred to in any way; and
is given on the basis that no statement implying endorsement on behalf of the Crown will be included in what is said or done.
(M)

19.375 - COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.

(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.

(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer's discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.

(M)

19.38 - COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

No officer or non-commissioned member shall enter into direct communication with any government department other than the Department of National Defence on subjects connected with the Canadian Forces or with the member's particular duties or future employment, unless the member is authorized to do so by or under

a statute of Canada;
QR&O; or
instructions from National Defence Headquarters.
(M)

NOTE

An example of a provision of a statute of Canada within the meaning of this article is subsection 58(2) of the Official Languages Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter 31 (4th Supplement)) which authorizes members to enter into direct communications with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

(C)


----------



## heavy reader (21 Apr 2013)

You can also look a bit further down in the same section of the QR&O's under exceptions for mal-administration.  

The only influence I am trying to gain is fundraising to support a CDS recommended Course of Action (Judicial Inquiry). And if a soldier cannot even do that to get relief for the policies which the CDS, Ombudsman and CFGBA agree are wrong, then what hope of justice is there?

I'm just saying that for an "entitlement" which CFGBA, the CF Ombudsman and CDS agree that I am entitled to, why do I have to:

fight for 3 and 1/2 years;
lose my health;
loose my friends/social netword;
have my family suffer; 
beg;
screw my career; 
loose $225,000 out of pocket;
have my children know nothing but hard times;
loose all savings;
become a barrack room lawyer in my "off" hours.

Really, I never drank the coolaid but I expected that there would be some support. And now the tables are being turned on me? 

I supose this is going to end one of two ways:

1. We win; or
2. We loose.


----------



## heavy reader (21 Apr 2013)

Hey, we already lost, so that only leaves "we win"!


----------



## heavy reader (1 May 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Just found a few interesting articles about the individual public servant who is the sole and final decision maker on HEA 100% from core benefits, and who has unilaterally declared that there are no depressed markets in Canada. He is currently mentioned  for his role in the $1 Billion dollar relocation contract which is responsible to relocate all of our soldiers, sailors and airmen/women.
> 
> The news reported in November that, according to the Ottawa Sun, he was investigated for his part in bid rigging for the Royal Lepage Contract fiasco and also for running a religious charity which "declared almost $1.2 million in revenue from 2004 to 2010 ... spending $1.3 million in total but only $268,000 on charity projects", the news also reports that this charity is run from his Ottawa house, which used 80,000 of the funds.
> 
> ...



Sure called this one on Ram Singh.  See http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/08/big-players-in-envoy-contract-rigging which states :

"How did Royal LePage exploit bogus numbers to win lucrative federal contracts? Two civil servants played key roles.

David Pyett

As a Public Works employee and newly-minted contract authority in 2002, David Pyett fielded questions from bidders and published the answers for all bidders to see.

But when Envoy asked about the quantity of property management services the winning bidder would be required to supply — Envoy felt the number looked high — Pyett told them to use the inflated numbers in the request for proposal.

“This number is used purely for evaluation and is consistent for all bidders,” Pyett said.

Annis was blunt.

“By this response, Mr. Pyett has boxed himself in” when he discovered that Royal LePage had ignored the request for proposal, Annis wrote.

“His decision was to conceal (Royal LePage’s) bid of 0% to avoid any scrutiny of his failures as Contract Authority.”

Ram Singh

Treasury Board staffer and project authority Ram Singh’s job included monitoring referrals to property management services.

He knew “full well” the inflated numbers in the request for proposal were “preposterous,” Annis found.

Envoy lawyers asked Royal LePage brass if Singh had ever solicited donations for his free-spending Sai Nilayam Spiritual Organization charity.

Former Royal LePage vice-president Ray Belair said he could not recall, “the standard answer resorted to often by witnesses in trouble in cross-examination,” Annis wrote.

Despite Annis’s “uneasiness,” with the “untruthful” Singh, the judge found “insufficient evidence … to conclude what motivated Mr. Singh to provide a benefit to (Royal LePage).”


----------



## heavy reader (9 May 2013)

*Judge awards $10M more to victim of ‘outrageous’ Canadian government misconduct*

Here's more news from the same folks at the Treasury Board who denied all 146 of 146 applications for relocation entitlements between 2007-2010:

"OTTAWA — An Ontario Superior Court judge awarded an additional $10 million in lost profits, interest and costs to the losing bidder of a relocation contract, chastising the “reprehensible,” “outrageous” and “shocking” misconduct of the federal government for rigging the deal and trying to deceive the court.

In a hard-hitting decision, Justice Peter Annis took the extraordinary step of awarding Envoy Relocation Services full costs in its legal battle to prove bureaucrats intentionally turned a blind eye to the rigging of the 2004 contract, which helped give Royal LePage Relocation Services a monopoly on moving thousands of military, RCMP and bureaucrats to new postings.

All told, the government has been ordered to pay Envoy $40 million.

“(The) court reaction expressed in terms of its shock or intensity of feeling caused by the misconduct of the party is a factor in the award costs on an elevated scale,” Annis wrote.

“As indicated, I have no difficulty concluding that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. Indeed, I would have ordered punitive damages but for the overriding factor of concluding that such an award would have served the purpose of denunciation or deterrence.”

Annis also found this preference for RLRS to win in 2004 was also behind selection criteria that heavily weighted technical merit over price, which favoured RLRS as the incumbent with a system already up and running.

But Annis said the misconduct continued when the lawsuit began and government failed to turn over documents that would have routinely been made available in normal court procedures.

Annis argued the government deserved to chastised for concealing documents, particularly some email exchanges and the commitment forms for third-party services and their pricing, which proved to be critical evidence on which the case turned. It revealed that key bureaucrats knew that RLRS was charging for property management.

Annis said that withholding the documents, which were only turned over when he ordered them produced, were an attempt to deceive the court.

“The concealment of crucial evidence that played a major role in the outcome of the case and misled the court is grave misconduct. Moreover, this conduct was intended to conceal significant deliberate reprehensible conduct prior to litigation.”



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Judge+awards+more+victim+outrageous+Canadian+government+misconduct/8345916/story.html


----------



## heavy reader (23 May 2013)

Watch for a federal announcement on Home Equity Assistance in Monday (27 May) morning's news. The announcement will be held Monday, 27 May at 0900(L), Alderney Landing (Dartmouth) for those in the local area who wish to attend.

Ubique!

http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance


----------



## TCM621 (24 May 2013)

Thanks for all the hard work you have put in for this. This can't have been easy for you personally or professionally.


----------



## TCM621 (27 May 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Watch for a federal announcement on Home Equity Assistance in Monday (27 May) morning's news. The announcement will be held Monday, 27 May at 0900(L), Alderney Landing (Dartmouth) for those in the local area who wish to attend.
> 
> Ubique!
> 
> http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance



DWAN link

http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201305/13052702.htm
http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201305/13052703.htm


----------



## heavy reader (8 Jun 2013)

Let the action begin. Brauer v. The Queen

http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/applicant_s-written-submissions.pdf


----------



## heavy reader (21 Jun 2013)

http://cds.mil.ca/doc/guidance-directives-eng.pdf

Chief of the Defence Staff Guidance to the Canadian Armed Forces 
June  20, 2013 


Caring for our Members

"Our members have been the key to our success this past decade. They and their families have made extraordinary contributions and sacrifices, and they have showed remarkable dedication, strength and resilience.

Our government has recognized the contribution of members of the CAF in many ways, through an excellent framework of compensation and benefits, timely recognition and honours, and improved member and family support programs. Taking care of the well-being of our troops and their families will remain a high priority for me.

In this period of more constrained resources, there remains a need to examine the framework of member and family support programs to ensure we deliver the best outcomes and effects. We need to ensure, whether in operations or in garrison, that the support mechanisms and programs in place reflect the realities of modern military service in Canada, while maintaining the right balance between institutional and individual responsibility. In the end, it is imperative we maintain a healthy balance between investing in operational capabilities and spending resources on caring for our people and their families.

The creation of the Joint Personnel Support Units in recent years attest to our commitment to provide the best support to CAF members, veterans and their families. Despite significant investments and great progress, these units are still in their development stage, and there remains room for improvement to ensure we provide high quality and cost effective programs and services. In parallel, we have made great strides to expand access to mental health and operational stress injury programs across the CAF. Last fall, the government increased funding for treatment programs for mentally ill military personnel and veterans. We are committed to continue to invest the necessary resources to improve the mental and fitness health of all CAF members.

For the CAF to continue to be successful, our military personnel must have the education, training, skills, and experience to function in today’s environment. As well, they must be mentally and physically fit to meet the rigours of military service. We will continue to invest in developing and training our people, and in vigorously strengthening the culture of fitness in the CAF.

*As we move forward, we will honour our commitment to our members and their families.* At the same time, we must ensure that the framework of compensation, benefits and support programs remain sustainable in the long-term, balancing appropriately individual and institutional responsibility".

I am hopeful that this includes the entitlements to relocation benefits, such as *Home Equity Assistance which has been systemically denied by Treasury Board*, and which some members have been fighting for over three and a half years, to their (and their family's) detriment.


----------



## heavy reader (10 Jul 2013)

The attached letter from MP Robert Chisholm to MP Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board) is self explanatory.  Please take a moment to read, comment and share as you see fit.

http://www.robertchisholm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clement-HEA-Letter-June-20130001.pdf


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

Now I'm starting to get mad.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

I was contacted by a young troop who got their HEA decision letter and the authority maladministered the policy again! This indiv is out approx $45,000 b/c someone can't read their policy. They incorrectly denied it because the soldiers house did not fall by 20% when sold.  It is the COMMUNITY that needs to drop by 20%, not the indiv's house.  This has been clearly reflected in previous grievances in 2010.

Lets look back at this three year administrative bungle over 100% HEA loss out of core.  Here are the summaries of the grevance results at CDS level:

2010 grievances:

$45,000 loss - "The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS also agreed with the Board's *systemic recommendation and he directed the DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. One issue for review is the definition of "community": using a large metropolitain area as a basis for defining a community would average out large discrepancies amongst the communities that make up the larger area*. The CDS strongly support the grievor's case as a valid compensation as a claim against the Crown for the loss of equity not reimbursed under the CF IRP, and he forwarded the file to the DCCL"

$53,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The *CDS redirected the DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with Treasury Board with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members*. With respect to the grievor's request regarding interest charges, the CDS agreed with the Board that there are no provisions allowing their reimbursement."

2011 Grievance:

$88,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS directed the DGCB to prepare and transmit the grievor's HEA submission to Treasury Board (TB), in accordance with the CF IRP provisions, for evaluation of depressed market status. In the event that TB should not find in favour of this submission, the CDS invited the grievor to forward his file to DCCL for compensatory consideration as a claim against the Crown, with his full support.
Since there are now a number of grievances relating to CF members who have experienced severe losses in home equity as a result of being posted to and from the Edmonton area, the *CDS reiterated his previous direction to the DGBC, as recommended by the Board in previous files, which is to continue to engage TB in vigorous negotiations*. The CDS specified that the negotiations should be focused as follows:
a. to revisit the TB's determination that there were no depressed markets in Canada in 2010, including the definition of ''community''; and
b. to re-examine the CF IRP HEA provisions, in particular the 20% depressed market criteria and the $15,000.00 maximum amount reimbursable under the CF IRP core envelope."

2012 Grievances

$53,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board that the grievance be partially upheld. Since the grievor has provided considerable information that seemed to meet the depressed market criteria of article 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009 , supporting his contention that Calgary's condos market had dropped, the CDS directed that his file be sent through DCBA to TBS for determination.
*As recommended by the Board in several HEA cases, and given the detrimental effect on CF members, the CDS directed CMP to review the adequacy of the CF IRP HEA provisions with TB to minimize any negative impact to CF members brought on by the exigencies of military service.*

$101,500 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board that the grievance be partially upheld. Since the grievor has provided the information required by article 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009 in support of his contention that his neighbourhood in Edmonton was a depressed market, the CDS directed that his file be sent through DCBA to TBS for determination.
*As recommended by the Board in several HEA cases, and given the detrimental effect on CF members, the CDS directed DGCB to review the adequacy of the CF IRP HEA provisions with TB to minimize any negative impact to CF members brought on by the exigencies of military service.*"

$76,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations that the grievance be denied. Section 1.3.02 of the CF IRP 2009 recognizes that there will be situations when exceptional circumstances may occur that was not already envisioned in the policy. In the grievor's case, the loss of home equity was covered by section 8.2.13 of the CF IRP 2009. In this case, the grievor did not suffer a 20% decline in housing costs as required by the disposition.
*The CDS reiterated his endorsement to the Board's systemic recommendation in previous cases that the HEA provisions be reviewed*."

$79,000 loss - CDS decision pending

$37,000 loss - "The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. However, the CDS agreed with the Board that the situation incurred by CF members with the application of the current Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy is egregious. Therefore, the *CDS confirmed the Board's systemic recommendation submitted in previous files on this matter and directed Director General Compensation and Benefits to actively review the adequacy of CFIRP HEA provisions with Treasury Board*"

$65,000 loss CDS decision pending.

Note that this one component of one policy has been under review for [*b]at least three ye*ars[/b] to the detriment of all of the families above.  I have been contacted by many others who did not claim HEA as their IRP rep identified that "there are no depressed markets in Canada" so do not apply (N.B. I was also told this but applied, and grieved regardless).

I know if the CDS had been telling me to do something, and he had to tell it to me 8 times, and it still was not done after three years, I'd be out of a job! My biggest issue is that since this is a known issue, why did the 2012 policy not change.  This new soldier is being made to suffer unnecesarily until the policy is changed.

From a financial perspective:  Had TBS paid out the HEA *ENTITLEMENT* it would have cost about $597,000 (approx). Since they continue to deny these entitlements, it costs taxpayers at least the fol: (9 x CDS grievances, at least 3 x Claims against the crown, 2 x Judicial Reviews, all the related staff work, work time from the members and loss of productivity).  If I were a betting man, this would far exceed the approx $600,000 that the families were entitled to.

So, if TBS is trying to do their job and save taxpayers money, should they not be granting entitlements that are authorized?

*Please consider helping us out with the Judical Review at http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance.*


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> I know if the CDS had been telling me to do something, and he had to tell it to me 8 times, and it still was not done after three years, I'd be out of a job! My biggest issue is that since this is a known issue, why did the 2012 policy not change.  This new soldier is being made to suffer unnecesarily until the policy is changed.



The CDS has no authority over this policy.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Per the National Defence Act section 12:



> Treasury Board’s power to make regulations
> (3) The Treasury Board may make regulations
> 
> (a) prescribing the rates and conditions of issue of pay of military judges, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services;
> ...



Thus, while DGCB can discuss this with the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat, it is ultimately the responsbility of the Ministers who sit as members of the Treasury Board to direct any changes.


----------



## stokerwes (23 Aug 2013)

Unless the PM directs TB to make changes, none will be made. Regardless of how many grievances are filed even if the CDS agrees with all of them. The only route for people affected by this is to take it to court. Which 99.99% of us do not have the resources to do. 
I feel for everyone that has been affected by this. I think the hardest part of these situations besides the financial loss and change of lifestyle that is required because of this, is that when it comes up in conversations with people who are not in the military or who have not been posted, don't laugh it happens a lot for sailors. The majority of them think the government just bought your house at market value, which I think they tried that but it didn't work out so well, or simply paid out any loss directly to the member.
I hope that this does eventually get sorted out but I am not holding my breath. Just take my 60k loss and "suck it up". Because if I don't like I can always get out.  >


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CDS has no authority over this policy.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.
> 
> Per the National Defence Act section 12:
> 
> Thus, while DGCB can discuss this with the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat, it is ultimately the responsbility of the Ministers who sit as members of the Treasury Board to direct any changes.



To clarify, this is a DND policy and it is administered by DND. The only component which TBS has influence is that they need to denote a community as "depressed".  The policy is written by a group consisting of all stakeholders (DND, RCMP, Public Works, TBS etc). For the military, the policy is crafted and vetted through DGCB, DCBA and DRBM prior to being signed off.  

Treasury Board Secretariat has acted beyond their delegated authority under the restrictions in the FAA, that they have (unofficially)changed the policy so that it is no longer in line with the intent. They initially denied all applications without so much as reviewing them (breach of policy) and applied a blanket denial "i.e.there are no depressed markets in Canada".  After the first few grievences went through the CDS office, they changed tactics by chaning the term "community" to mean "Census Metropolitan Area". This effectively merges any depressed market of a town (aka community), with a larger metropolitan area so that all members are denied.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2013)

It is a policy approved by the Treasury Board and administered by DND.  It is not a policy approved by DND.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Unless the PM directs TB to make changes, none will be made. Regardless of how many grievances are filed even if the CDS agrees with all of them. The only route for people affected by this is to take it to court. Which 99.99% of us do not have the resources to do.
> I feel for everyone that has been affected by this. I think the hardest part of these situations besides the financial loss and change of lifestyle that is required because of this, is that when it comes up in conversations with people who are not in the military or who have not been posted, don't laugh it happens a lot for sailors. The majority of them think the government just bought your house at market value, which I think they tried that but it didn't work out so well, or simply paid out any loss directly to the member.
> I hope that this does eventually get sorted out but I am not holding my breath. Just take my 60k loss and "suck it up". Because if I don't like I can always get out.  >



Thanks for the comment.  One point, TBS attempted in court to dissmiss the issue as there were only a few cases being grieved.  I do agree that court is the next step and we're on it. I had hoped that it would have been obvious to the decision makers to rectify this issue, but there are likely much larger issues at play.  Such as the TBS wanting to look incompotent rather than corrupt as their the Relocation Program Authority at TBS just cost taxpayers $10,000,000 for the "reprehensible,” “outrageous” and “shocking” misconduct of the federal government for bid rigging the IRP Relocation Contract and trying to deceive the court.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Judge+awards+more+victim+outrageous+Canadian+government+misconduct/8345916/story.html)


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

The CFIRP  "represents the Treasury Board Secretariat’s approved policy for CF members on relocation of their Dependants, Household Goods and Effects ((D) HG&E)." The CFIRP has DGCB as the departmental authority.

After reading through several thousand pages of ATI returns on the development, negotiations and refinement of the 2009 CF IRP policy, it is very obvious that the CFIRP is a CF Policy, administered by the CF and that it is based on the National Joint Council Relocation Directive. It is only in a very few cases where TBS is involved (i.e. HEA 100% from core).


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

The TBS acted beyond their delegated authority as follows: Application of blanket denial of policy contravenes of the Financial Administration Act— TDI 104 states AUTHORITY — TB — DELEGATION 

"The Treasury Board delegates, pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the Financial Administration Act, to the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the Board’s authority under subsection 35(2) of the National Defence Act to determine and regulate payments that may be made to Canadian Forces members, for the following specific purposes: 

(a) to ensure comparability to payments that are authorized to be made to a public service employee in similar circumstances; and 
(b) to make minor amendments to the unique travel and relocation benefits that may be payable to Canadian Forces members, if the Secretary is of the opinion that the amendments *will not change the essential character of those benefits*.

The CDS, CF Ombudsman and CFGBA have identified that by (unoficially) switching "community" (as written in the policy), with "area" (as written in the decision letters), TBS has indeed changed the essential character of the benefits. 146 of 146 individuals denied.

TBS' own media lines (July 2011) confirm that the intent of the relocation directive is to "“It is the policy of the Government of Canada to relocate an employee in the most efficient manner and at the most reasonable cost to the public. The relocation should also have the minimum detrimental effect on the employee, his or her family, and on the employing department’s operations...It is the policy of the Government of Canada to relocate an employee in the most efficient manner and at the most reasonable cost to the public. The relocation should also have the minimum detrimental effect on the employee, his or her family, and on the employing department’s operations” http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/july-2011-tbs-media-lines.pdf

The relocation program authority at TBS did not have decision making authority delegation in place to initially make the blanket denial, and certainly did not have the delegated authority to change community to mean CMA or AREA as it changed the essential character of those benefits. This had the effect of denying all 146 HEA applications for 100% between 2007 and 2010.

C'mon folks...everyone involved knows what the right thing to do here is. Lets stop this loophole before more military families are destroyed! Lets fix this BEFORE it becomes a class action costing millions!


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2013)

[ongoing sidebar discussion about who approves the policy versus who administers it]



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> It is a policy approved by the Treasury Board and administered by DND.  It is not a policy approved by DND.





			
				heavy reader said:
			
		

> The CFIRP  "represents the Treasury Board Secretariat’s approved policy for CF members on relocation of their Dependants, Household Goods and Effects ((D) HG&E)." The CFIRP has DGCB as the departmental authority.



Hmm... sound suspiciously similar...



> After reading through several thousand pages of ATI returns on the development, negotiations and refinement of the 2009 CF IRP policy, it is very obvious that the CFIRP is a CF Policy, administered by the CF and that it is based on the National Joint Council Relocation Directive. It is only in a very few cases where TBS is involved (i.e. HEA 100% from core).



While there may well be back and forth between DND/CF and TBS on the development of the IRP policy, it is ultimately TB that decides what goes in the policy.  

The administration of the policy, however, is largely done by DND/CF.  For the administration of the policy, in the HEA cases, there is a requirement to engage TBS. 


The CDS can try to influence such policies, but ultimately he is not part of the decision making for Compensation & Benefit policies.  Thus, those policies cannot be said to be CF (or DND, for that matter, as they are outside the DM's scope as well).

[/ongoing sidebar discussion about who approves the policy versus who administers it]


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2013)

Yes, it was a long day. We are saying the same point.  However, we are not asking the policy to be changed, we are asking that it be applied as it is written and with the intent it was created for.


----------



## heavy reader (3 Sep 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Let the action begin. Brauer v. The Queen
> 
> http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/applicant_s-written-submissions.pdf



Developments on the Judicial Review (Home Equity Assistance denial) is available at http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1028-13

Latest news:  August 30th, 2013 Judge orders TBS to provide documents i.e.

"Written directions received from the Court: Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary dated 30-AUG-2013 directing that 

1. the respondent shall serve and file concise written reresentations to establish the basis of objection pursuant to rule 317 and 318 twenty (20) days from the date of this direction; 

2. the applicant shall serve and file concise written representation in response fifteen (15) days from the service of the above; 

3. the repsondent shall serve and file written representations in reply five (5) days from the date of service of the above;... placed on file on 30-AUG-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)".


----------



## heavy reader (9 Sep 2013)

See attached letter from MP Robert Chisholm on the issue of systemic denial of HEA entitlements.

http://www.robertchisholm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clement-HEA-Letter-June-20130001.pdf


----------



## heavy reader (9 Sep 2013)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> See attached letter from MP Robert Chisholm on the issue of systemic denial of HEA entitlements.
> 
> http://www.robertchisholm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clement-HEA-Letter-June-20130001.pdf



Note that there has been a motion on the Standing Committee of National Defence to study the Systemic Denial of HEA entitlements to CF members on 27 May, 2013 by Jack Harris http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6177983 as follows:

    There's also something that's somewhat pressing involving the ability of the Department of National Defence to actually deliver on programs for Canadian Forces members. We've raised it before with officials from the department and with military personnel, but I think we'd like to have more of a detailed study done on this.  So, Mr. Chair, I would like to move, pursuant to a notice of motion given March 19, 2013:


*That the Standing Committee on National Defence undertake a study of the operation of the Canadian Forces home equity assistance program, particularly the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program to reimburse Canadian Forces members who have suffered losses on the sales of their family residence when transferred by the Canadian Forces to other locations, and that the Chair report this Committee's findings and recommendations to the House.   * I have that in both official languages, for those who don't have a copy."


----------



## heavy reader (10 Sep 2013)

http://pierrejacob.ndp.ca/ndp-wants-defence-committee-to-help-canadian-forces-members-with-home-equity-losses

NDP Wants Defence Committee To Help Canadian Forces Members With Home Equity Losses
March 20th, 2013 - 11:57pm

For Immediate Release

NDP WANTS DEFENCE COMMITTEE TO HELP CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS WITH HOME EQUITY LOSSES



OTTAWA – Canadian Forces members who have suffered significant losses on sale of their homes when transferred to another location by the CF should be compensated. NDP Defence critic, Jack Harris (St. John’s East), has submitted a motion asking the National Defence Committee to study the Canadian Forces Home Equity Assistance Program and make recommendations to ensure CF members and their families have improved financial protection.

"This program, if adopted, would help Canadian military families, who have to move frequently. It is important to establish this kind of assistance, "said Pierre Jacob.

Both the Canadian Forces Ombudsman and the Canadian Forces Grievance Board have recognized the problem, but it has yet to be addressed. There is urgent need to find a mechanism to financially compensate these CF members for the sake of fairness.


“The government has a program intended to help the members of our military with relocation but it appears to be failing them,” said Harris. “We have a number of people in desperate financial circumstances as a result. This is an opportunity for the Defence Committee to look at ways to solve the problem.”


----------



## heavy reader (10 Sep 2013)

It was hoped that the new powers of the CDS would allow for the resolution of grievances.  Unfortunately, that is not the case for home equity assistance.  As referred to below, the CDS has not used this new financial authority (at this time) to assist with those denied their HEA entitlements.  The following is an exerpt from http://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/6/17/john-mckay-2/ :


"Question No. 1356
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

June 17th, 2013 / 3:25 p.m. 

Liberal 
 John McKay Scarborough—Guildwood, ON 

With regard to the ex gratia payments to Canadian Forces members in relation to the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) provisions: (a) how many members received a payment; (b) what is the rank of each recipient; and (c) what is the date and amount for each ex gratia payment that was made by the Department of Justice, Office of the Department of National Defence Canadian Forces Legal Authority, concerning HEA provisions, as governed by the Department of National Defence HEA, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013?
3:25 p.m. 

Conservative 
 Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence 

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces searched their records and found *no instances * of ex gratia payments to Canadian Armed Forces members in relation to the home equity assistance provisions between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013." 

It was hoped that Privy Council Order 2012-0861 would have provided the authority for the CDS, however it is seen as non-retroactive and not able to be used when dealing with TBS policy.  The wording is as follows:

PC Number: 2012-0861Date: 2012-06-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board and the Minister of National Defence, makes the annexed Canadian Forces Grievance Process Ex Gratia Payments Order. 

  
ANNEX 


CANADIAN FORCES GRIEVANCE PROCESS EX GRATIA PAYMENTS ORDER 

 1. (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff may authorize an ex gratia payment to a person in respect of whom a final decision is made under the grievance process established under the National Defence Act. 

  

(2) A payment under subsection (1) may only be authorized if the final decision is made on or after the day on which this Order comes into force. 

  
2. The Chief of the Defence Staff may delegate the power to authorize a payment under subsection 1(1) to an officer who is directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff. 

  
3. The power to authorize a payment under subsection 1(1) is subject to any conditions imposed by the Treasury Board. 

So what?

While the CDS has been given the financial authority, it is deemed of no effect in the HEA systemic denial by TBS. The system has provided a solution which does not solve anything.


----------



## TCM621 (10 Oct 2013)

Marcus, saw your last up date. Score one for the good guys.


----------



## heavy reader (25 Nov 2013)

We have hundreds of items for sale to support the "Soldiers Justice Fund". I live in Dartmouth, and work in Halifax (D-201) and can deliver, or items can be mailed.

Please have a look and support our cause, thank you. (I am open to offers as this is a fundraiser).

http://stores.ebay.ca/UBIQUE-ANTIQUES


(Note, this is not a business - we are selling our assets for a Judicial Review). Status of our fight can be found at http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1028-13

Marc

466-4339 (After hours)

i_win(at)live.ca


----------



## heavy reader (25 Nov 2013)

I notice that the Standing Committee on National Defence (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6305455&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2) is planning a trip to 1 CAD, Shilo in the new year and to PETAWAWA around 5 December 2013.

Personnel are affected by the Systemic HEA denial may want to discuss if there is a town hall or question opportunity as these are the same folks who have a motion in their committee to study and (hopefully) resolve the systemic denial of Home Equity Assistance by TBS.

Here is the motion: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6177983

It would be a good opportunity to share your experience if you see fit.  

"Pursuant to a notice of motion given March 19, 2013:  That the Standing Committee on National Defence undertake a study of the operation of the Canadian Forces home equity assistance program, particularly the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program to reimburse Canadian Forces members who have suffered losses on the sales of their family residence when transferred by the Canadian Forces to other locations, and that the Chair report this Committee's findings and recommendations to the House. "


----------



## heavy reader (29 Jan 2014)

As I doubt that I will get a response from the JAG office, I want to find out if a CLASS ACTION on the Systemic Denial of Home Equity Assistance can be filed by a serving member, where other CAF and RCMP members are CLASS ACTION members.

Specifically, concerns surrounding Mutiny as defined in National Defence Act as fol:

“mutiny” means collective insubordination or a combination of two or more persons in the resistance of lawful authority in any of Her Majesty’s Forces


Whereas, the Federal Court identifies the purpose of a class action as follows:

Federal Courts Rules - SOR/98-106 (Section 334.16) 
Marginal note:Conditions
334.16 (1) Subject to subsection (3), a judge shall, by order, certify a proceeding as a class proceeding if

(a) the pleadings disclose a *reasonable cause of action;*
(b) there is an identifiable *class of two or more persons;*
(c) the claims of the class members *raise common questions of law or fact,  * whether or not those common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members;

(d) a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the *just and efficient resolution of the common questions of law or fact*; and

(e) there is a represe*ntative plaintiff* or applicant who

(i) would *fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class*,

(ii) has prepared a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members as to how the proceeding is progressing,

(iii) does not have, on the common questions of law or fact, an interest that is in conflict with the interests of other class members, and

Marginal note:Matters to be considered
(2) All relevant matters shall be considered in a determination of whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the just and efficient resolution of the common questions of law or fact, including whether

(a) the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;

(b) a significant number of the members of the class have a valid interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate proceedings;

(c) the class proceeding would involve claims that are or have been the subject of any other proceeding;

[...]

(e) the administration of the class proceeding would create greater difficulties than those likely to be experienced if relief were sought by other means.

It would appear that, based on the Federal Court Rules, that a class action may be initiated by a member of the CAF with other members of the CAF.  As the Judicial Review for the systemic denial of home equity assistance is scheduled to be decided upon in the Spring of 2014, I would like to begin this discussion to iron out any issues, and trouble shoot if this Judicial Review can be followed by a Class Action with CAF and RCMP members.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2014)

Call the JAG and ask him. Thinking that you won't get a response and not asking is a useless argument and, frankly, pretty stupid.


----------



## heavy reader (10 Feb 2014)

RECCEGUY:

The JAG works for the commander / CoC and cannot provide any legal advice to service members. It puts them in a conflict of interest position and is clearly stated in the regulations. I have experienced this several times, so it is not a baseless arguement.  Just looking for some suggestions.

"CF members are often under the wrong impression that they can rely on unit legal advisers for personal legal advice. Regardless of whether the advice being sought relates to their military careers or their personal lives, members are not normally entitled to receive legal advice from CF legal officers. As a matter of policy, government and CF authorities have determined that legal officers will be utilized to assist government interests. Other than in extremely limited circumstances, CF legal officers will not provide counsel to individual CF members on any aspect of their military service. To provide advice to CF members in this context would be contrary to the lawyer’s professional obligations as a member governed by a provincial law society and would constitute a conflict of interest (COI) with the legal officer’s solicitor/client obligations to the CF and the Government of Canada." (Mil Admin Law Manual at http://jag.mil.ca/publications/adminlaw-loiadmin/miladminlaw-droitadminmil-eng.pdf

However, I'll ask thru the CoC and let you know how it turns out.


----------



## Tibbson (10 Feb 2014)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> RECCEGUY:
> 
> The JAG works for the commander / CoC and cannot provide any legal advice to service members. It puts them in a conflict of interest position and is clearly stated in the regulations. I have experienced this several times, so it is not a baseless arguement.  Just looking for some suggestions.
> 
> ...



Your are right.  The fact they are hired by the CF and serve as the departments legal council means they cannot advise anyone else on a matter in which the CF may be involved.  That goes along with their Provincial Bar Assn rules as well.   Its no different then someone who has been charged trying to ask the Crown for legal advise.  Its a conflict of interest all around.


----------



## McG (19 Feb 2014)

The latest developments on this problem:


> * Military family battles Harper government in Federal Court over moving losses*
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> 18 February 2014
> 
> ...


 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Military+family+battles+Harper+government+Federal+Court/9521392/story.html


----------



## heavy reader (7 Apr 2014)

Federal Court date announced:

Judicial Review (s.18) to be heard at Special Sitting in Halifax on 15-APR-2014 to begin at 09:30 duration: 3h language: E.

Location: 

Supreme Court (General Division)
The Law Courts Building
1815 Upper Water St.
Halifax, NS
B3J 1S7

Backgrounder: Details and case history can be found at http://healoss.wordpress.com/

I hope to see you there!


----------



## heavy reader (9 Apr 2014)

Canadian Forces Major sues feds over moving bill, CBC, 9 April

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-forces-major-sues-feds-over-moving-bill-1.2603391


----------



## TCM621 (29 Apr 2014)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Canadian Forces Major sues feds over moving bill, CBC, 9 April
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-forces-major-sues-feds-over-moving-bill-1.2603391



Marcus,

I am assuming bad news? I figured you would have posted a win.


----------



## Occam (29 Apr 2014)

He has no answer yet.  Yesterday was the deadline for TBS to provide the additional material on the DND and RCMP relocation policies to the judge.  Then the judge will have to digest all of that...and write a decision.


----------



## TCM621 (29 Apr 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> He has no answer yet.  Yesterday was the deadline for TBS to provide the additional material on the DND and RCMP relocation policies to the judge.  Then the judge will have to digest all of that...and write a decision.



Well that's OK. Hopefully it will go good.


----------



## heavy reader (30 Apr 2014)

Court went extremely well (from my perspective).  The judge asked for ALL previous TBS decision (military AND RCMP). The TBS refused to provide citing that they are "Confidences of the Privy Council". You can read their response at http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/29-apr-14-ltr-to-court-from-doj-enc-additional-documentation.pdf.  

We are awaiting a decision from the court at this time. Hopefully the fix will resolve this issue for everyone, and not just those relocating from Bon Accord, Ab.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## Tibbson (25 May 2014)

It seems the Court has ruled that DND (the govt) must reassess the Najor's case and pay his court costs.  Lets see if anything actually changes in the end though.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-court-decision-orders-government-to-review-soldier-s-housing-case-1.1837503


----------



## Strike (25 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> It seems the Court has ruled that DND (the govt) must reassess the Najor's case and pay his court costs.  Lets see if anything actually changes in the end though.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-court-decision-orders-government-to-review-soldier-s-housing-case-1.1837503



Not DND, but TSB.  Big difference.


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2014)

Strike said:
			
		

> Not DND, but TSB.  Big difference.



Not the Transportation Safety Board (TSB), but the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).  Big difference


----------



## Strike (25 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not the Transportation Safety Board (TSB), but the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).  Big difference



AAAAARGH!  I'm going to blame my phone on that one.


----------



## heavy reader (30 May 2014)

New CANFORGEN released yesterday on CFIRP indicating a "complete review". Hopefully it will improve benefits and not remove them.


----------



## 24839 (4 Jun 2014)

what is the update on this?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Jun 2014)

The decision is under review. It will probably take months


----------



## Occam (5 Jun 2014)

24839 said:
			
		

> what is the update on this?



Update on _what_, exactly?


----------



## heavy reader (12 Jun 2014)

I've been away on taskings for a while. Here is the update: We won in Federal Court.  The entire decision can be found at:http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hea-federal-decision.pdf and is worth the read. Especially the portions highlighted in red.

In a nutshell: Justice Mosley, found that "TBS relied on irrelevant, post-dated and unsubstantiated information." He went on to say that "the the investigative file material and the memorandum is of an after-the-fact justification, not a fair minded evaluation.  A case was made to justify the negative conclusion previously delivered".

The judge found in favour of the military member.  

Currently, TBS has 11 days to appeal the decision. If they did, it would likely cause more embarassment for the TBS than they could handle. We'll have to watch and shoot.

At this time, I am waiting for TBS to declare Bon Accord as a depressed market, as directed in court so that the reimbursement can take place. 

Since the decision, there was an interview (CBC the Current) and CAF released CANFORGEN 089/14 CMP 041/14 281403Z MAY 14 - 2014 CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM DIRECTIVE AND COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS INSTRUCTION 208 SECTION 8.

We have recieved no financial compensation yet.


----------



## TCM621 (12 Jun 2014)

Marcus, i am so glad this worked out for you and your family. Thanks for doing the work that will benefit all of us.

Tony


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jun 2014)

I too, congratulate him on his win.  However, I would not start celebrating too hard until the money is in his bank account.


----------



## GINge! (13 Jun 2014)

First get Bonacord, then hopefully that will set precedent for other regions of Edmonton for that timeframe that were also hit. It's been a long haul for you MB!


----------



## heavy reader (23 Jun 2014)

It is official.

As of 231530(L) 14, we have won the case against TBS and the 30 day period for TBS to appeal has lapsed. Now, I can get to work on resolving this for the other affected families and begin the healing process at home.

Thanks to everyone for their support, criticism and ideas, your voices on this subject are contributing to making a huge difference in the lives of military families who needed your help.

UBIQUE!


----------



## TCM621 (24 Jun 2014)

That's great Marcus. I am glad it all worked out


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jun 2014)

Marcus,

As a new homeowner with a young family, I really want to thank you for bringing this out into the public domain and dealing with the numerous hardships over the past few years. You've not only got justice for yourself, but successfully beat the civilian system that at times seems to deliberately want to screw us around. You've secured the ground on which many other military families will get fair compensation for being ripped away from a home at a huge loss through no fault of their own.

Thanks again.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Jul 2014)

Update:

Still no action from TBS (i.e. decision that Bon Accord is a "depressed market"), and therefore, still no money since our 10 May 2010 move from Edmonton to Halifax.

As of last week, TBS has not "assigned anyone to assign the case".  So, our family (and others) continue to wait for justice.  It has been...

-132,624,000 seconds 
-2,210,400 minutes 
-36,840 hours 
-1535 days 
-219 weeks 
-4 Years 2 months and 14 days!

In the meanwhile, here are some updates on the current contract works: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/faqgcrss-ssrgc-eng.html; and

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-ZL-106-26343


----------



## heavy reader (28 Jul 2014)

ALCON:

HUGE announcement is in the works, on the Home Equity Assistance issue!

More to follow.


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2014)

I've heard of some five figure losses on homes in Oromocto this year.  Wonder if they will be looked after.


----------



## Tibbson (2 Aug 2014)

I'm still pissed on another aspect of this.  In a "normal" year posting messages would have been out a lot sooner then they were this year and there would have been 3 to 4 months before COS to sell a home and move.  Add to that the 30 day COS extension that could be requested and for many of us that is enough time to sell, buy and move.  This year msgs were so late that many had 2.5 months till COS and then, if it was granted, the 30 day extension.  Many of us still find ourselves in a position where we cant sell and now must make a choice to go unaccompanied till we sell, take the family and rent on the other end till we sell or risk a huge loss on our homes that may or may not be covered.  Either way causes a huge financial and emotional burden on the member.  

In my case I have no choice but to go unaccompanied as I was denied any further extension beyond my initial 30 days.  Oh sure I will get an amout designed at cover what DND says should be my rent on a room at a private rental or more for a furnished suite but even with the list the OR gave me and two weeks of kijiji ads I will still need to pay min $200 extra for a room or $435 extra for a suite out of my own pocket to live unaccompanied while we try to sell.  Add to that the costs for MY food, MY gas, MY parking at my residence (over what DND) reimburses, or the cost of a bus pass and the extra commute time, and my other misc costs PLUS the normal costs for my family back home and I just dont know how we are going to do it.  Im so pissed at those who abused the previous IR system benifits that used to cover such things and were intended for those who really needed them.  I remember being told years ago that the IR system was there and they couldnt spend it all so make use of it if you want so I cant just blame the users I guess.

I guess I'm off to my new posting, incuring more debt, leaving my family behind, stressing my wife, disrupting my kids schooling all while I eat ramen noodles and close to expired Dollar Store knock off Alphagetti.  Yep, there's no life like it.


----------



## trustnoone73 (2 Aug 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I'm still pissed on another aspect of this.  In a "normal" year posting messages would have been out a lot sooner then they were this year and there would have been 3 to 4 months before COS to sell a home and move.



I was in your exact situation in 2012 when messages weren't cut till April.  My house was on the market 95 days before I pulled it and rented it out.  I was lucky I had enough equity to refinance and by a second house.

Depends on your market and where you're headed.  For me it was the least damaging of all other options.


----------



## Petard (2 Aug 2014)

The 30 day "extension" you're referring to I'm guessing is your report for duty date, and not change of strength date. For many of the same reasons you described, but the main one being the late delivery of the posting messages, and for operational reasons not being able to let the member go on an HHT, I requested a change of COS date from the gaining unit (and career manager), and COS date changed to Nov.


----------



## Tibbson (2 Aug 2014)

Petard said:
			
		

> The 30 day "extension" you're referring to I'm guessing is your report for duty date, and not change of strength date. For many of the same reasons you described, but the main one being the late delivery of the posting messages, and for operational reasons not being able to let the member go on an HHT, I requested a change of COS date from the gaining unit (and career manager), and COS date changed to Nov.



Correct.  I should reread more when I'm frustrated.  My request for change of COS date was made twice actually as I have other family factors involving a disabled child but both requests were denied.  In writing I've been told both "[my] situation in regards to late posting messages is no different then anyone elses" and "[I'm] supposed to have a family care plan for such situations".  Im not looking to make money off the situation but I'm tired of losing all the time.  The attitude and changes in policy are just more reasons to rethink my future as this organization continues to slowly circle the drain.  Hell, they wont even let me draw a reasonable amount from my personal envelope to assist with the costs I'll have to take on just to support myself unaccompanied.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (3 Aug 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Correct.  I should reread more when I'm frustrated.  My request for change of COS date was made twice actually as I have other family factors involving a disabled child but both requests were denied.  In writing I've been told both "[my] situation in regards to late posting messages is no different then anyone elses" and "[I'm] supposed to have a family care plan for such situations".  Im not looking to make money off the situation but I'm tired of losing all the time.  The attitude and changes in policy are just more reasons to rethink my future as this organization continues to slowly circle the drain.  Hell, they wont even let me draw a reasonable amount from my personal envelope to assist with the costs I'll have to take on just to support myself unaccompanied.



This is one of the things that pisses me off most with DND. I get that CF operations take priority. I get that we agree to put our mission first ahead of ourselves and even our subordinates. But it's with the ar***oles that take that so far that they use it as an excuse to screw over troops in situations that are absolutely not operational priority under the guise of "you're a soldier 24/7, you need to be ready for anything at a moments notice". 

90% of people are and do drop everything for the CF when they are needed to. It's when they are asked to drop everything in their family life when they are not needed to is when we fail our subordinates. 

The idea of pressuring soldiers to make that move in decreasing periods of time in officially undepressed depressed markets so they can rush to report to a unit that is all but shutdown on block leave. I'm lucky to have a great home situation and can move or deploy on a moments notice, but I don't pretend like my subordinates with 3 kids at home, or a sick immediate family member can change on a dime without significant personal impact.

Yes good soldiers are ready to adapt to any situation, but we don't need to constantly and ridgedly screw them over as a continuous test of that loyalty.


----------



## stokerwes (3 Aug 2014)

X 1000
Good Post


----------



## TCM621 (3 Aug 2014)

Bit of thread drift but I have seen a definite trend towards late messages over the last couple years. Messages that in many cases are coming later than proscribed in orders, for no other reason than lack of organization. I recently got a TD message for a course 18 days prior to leaving even though I had been nominated for months and my ETO office was calling them weekly.


----------



## Tibbson (3 Aug 2014)

I didn't intend it to be a drift because my core issue is with home sales, lack of equity assistnce and the financial ruin that can bring about.  Sure, I'm unable to sell my home, I'm also unable to count on any sort of safety net that protects me AND owing to the slashing of other programs such as IR benifits or even the non-availability of single quarters I can draw upon for assistance, I'm quickly going to find myself in a situation where I still have maintain the family home AND cover an extra set of personal expences sich as food, rent over and above what DND covers and general living expenses for me to go unaccompanied...not by choice I might add.  After all the years of my career I now find myself in the situation where working for the CAF is actually costing me money.


----------



## stokerwes (3 Aug 2014)

Thank all the previous abusers of IR,  a good majority of them were fairly senior. I was too was forced to go on IR because of the inability to sell my home a few yeara back. I did get some money for a few months but that ended pretty quickly  I think the two  issues are closely related as a lot of people that are on IR are on IR because they cannot sell their home. I ended up losing a substantial amount of money on the sale of my home and  was unable to recieve HEA as my home was not in a depressed market even tought home prices dropped about 60k on average in that area.
The sad fact is that even after losing in court the TB is still dragging its feet.


----------



## Petard (3 Aug 2014)

Besides the relatively late posting messages, I've seen three people posted in last 2 years with bad guidance on what constitutes the geographical boundaries for the posting they're going to. In one case the IRP rep flatly said they didn't know, and didn't follow it up. In 2 others, the rep clearly guessed it was only the immediate vicinity of the major city of the posting. In each of these situations I provided the personnel with the actual geographical areas for the posting, which usually are quite large.

I'm not sure how they come up with these boundaries though, it almost seems arbitrary. Looking at some of the house and rent prices at the extremes of the boundaries, it looks like the intent is to provide a very broad area in which to find an affordable residence, but typically what appears to be more affordable, or more stable, also tends to be further away from where the actual place of work is, consequently adding to any commuting costs. You would almost think the real intent of such broad geographical areas is to permit a much lower average price for accommodations, which, of course, is the crux of this HEA problem


----------



## Tibbson (3 Aug 2014)

Well, if they were going to skew the results you just KNOW they aren't going to skew them in our favour.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Aug 2014)

Petard said:
			
		

> Besides the relatively late posting messages, I've seen three people posted in last 2 years with bad guidance on what constitutes the geographical boundaries for the posting they're going to. In one case the IRP rep flatly said they didn't know, and didn't follow it up. In 2 others, the rep clearly guessed it was only the immediate vicinity of the major city of the posting. In each of these situations I provided the personnel with the actual geographical areas for the posting, which usually are quite large.
> 
> I'm not sure how they come up with these boundaries though, it almost seems arbitrary. Looking at some of the house and rent prices at the extremes of the boundaries, it looks like the intent is to provide a very broad area in which to find an affordable residence, but typically what appears to be more affordable, or more stable, also tends to be further away from where the actual place of work is, consequently adding to any commuting costs. You would almost think the real intent of such broad geographical areas is to permit a much lower average price for accommodations, which, of course, is the crux of this HEA problem



Does an IRP rep even have any way to actually confirm the geographical boundaries? For most locations they are posted DWAN only -- does Brookfield have unrestricted access to DWAN? Making sure the member lives within geographical boundaries might be entirely a responsibility of the member and the chain of command.

But you're right about them seeming arbitrary. The boundaries for Ottawa go all the way to the US border, which does seem a little far for a daily commute. And if the idea behind limiting a member to certain boundaries is so that they can be called back to work in an emergency, that didn't seem to stop Kingston from including Wolfe Island within the boundaries, which has no bridge and a ferry which doesn't run 24/7.


----------



## eliminator (4 Aug 2014)

Capital Improvements

I'm interested to hear experiences with HEA and capital improvements. The IRP "agents" on my base are very nonchalant about the process. I was told to "just bring in your receipts and we'll submit the claim."  I literally have a shoebox full of home depot and contractor receipts and IRP didn't seem to see this as an issue. 

Situation example. Bought for $250k, did approx $50k in renos (gutted bathrooms, kitchen, and driveway), and ultimately may have to sell for $280k since the market has dropped in my area due to multiple large employers closing their doors. (would have easily sold for $310k last year)

So, based on the HEA policy with regards to capital improvements, I may be submitting a claim for $20k ($250k + $50k - $280k). 

Has anyone submitted a HEA claim to recover capital improvements? Success? How did you document your improvements?


----------



## Tibbson (4 Aug 2014)

Just what are we able to claim under HEA right now?  If someone bought for $220 k, was assessed as part of the IRP process at $250k and sold for $240 k can they claim the $10k "loss of equity" or are you only able to claim any amount under your original purchase price (up to the $15k limit without going higher)?  Calls to IRP go unanswered, messages are not returned and I'm not in a position to attend the office right now to force an answer.  Of course, the book isnt much help or available to me right now.


----------



## Occam (4 Aug 2014)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2009-aps-2014.pdf

See sections 8.2.10 and 8.2.13.


----------



## trustnoone73 (4 Aug 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> non-availability of single quarters I can draw upon for assistance, I'm quickly going to find myself in a situation where I still have maintain the family home AND cover an extra set of personal



This is F**Ked.  So with fair market value for rent is a one way street that affects only what is charged for PMQs?

Have you considered the free R&Q options like volunteering for perpetual base/unit duty?  The minute sheet on that memo might be interesting.  Can you have yourself arrested and put in cells for vagrancy?  

Aside from the usual cost of commuting and Tims no one should be out of pocket to go to work.


----------



## McG (4 Aug 2014)

Let's try not to drag this thread into either of the conversations happening here http://army.ca/forums/threads/78585.0.html or here http://army.ca/forums/threads/115780.0.html


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Aug 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> There is a policy, like it or not, that we all have to follow.



Maybe it's time the policy is changed.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Aug 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Because policy now dictates that PMQ rates need to match market values, more PMQ's would only alleviate the shortage of housing, but not the cost of living involved. The days of subsidized housing are over, which is one of the offsets of the increased pay rates we received.
> I personally can only justify DND owned housing in a few areas. SQs on base for members attending course, or personnel on IR, (everyone else should have to live on the economy) and quarters in areas like Ottawa for people on IR, if the cost analysis made it worth while.



A lot of people including non-military people are surprised that it is no longer a perk for being in the military.  If we are going to be expected to live on the economy like civilians that perhaps we should have more of the same rights.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Aug 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's try not to drag this thread into either of the conversations happening here http://army.ca/forums/threads/78585.0.html or here http://army.ca/forums/threads/115780.0.html



Well, since I'm fine with my pay and parkings a done deal I'll not switch over.  I still feel my comments are in line with HEA and benefits,  but obviousy not in line enough for "the thread police", so I'll just end my involvement in this thread at this point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I still feel my comments are in line with HEA and benefits,  but obviousy not in line enough for "the thread police", so I'll just end my involvement in this thread at this point.



Quit hacking on the unpaid volunteers that spend a large part of their free time helping to keep the board running smoothly and on topic.

It's largely due to their efforts that you can even have a reasoned discussion here.


----------



## heavy reader (25 Aug 2014)

Update:

I have been advised by the legal team that TBS will be meeting to discuss the Judges Direction on 01 September, 2014. Lets hope it's not a snow day in Ottawa.

I would really like to put this behind me.


----------



## CountDC (25 Aug 2014)

Petard said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how they come up with these boundaries though, it almost seems arbitrary.



Looked into that awhile ago as I had a clerk setting their own boundary.  Turns out the person that does have the power to set it for that location is the Div Comd.  The process is the CO submits what he thinks should be the boundary, brigade agrees and then div approves.   Large bases I imagine would be the Base Comd. So if you don't agree with the boundary for your area there is a starting point.

There is a wide range of them that is sure so when moving it is worthwhile to check the new boundary.  You may find yourself going from a 100+km boundary to a 25km boundary.


----------



## heavy reader (18 Sep 2014)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> ALCON:
> 
> HUGE announcement is in the works, on the Home Equity Assistance issue!
> 
> More to follow.



Well, that big announcement promised so long ago will be coming out NEXT WEEK. This is the start of phase III of my HEA battle. Let's hope the dominos are all in a row.


----------



## heavy reader (1 Oct 2014)

Anouncement:

Class action lawsuit launched on behalf of soldiers who were systematically denied their HEA entitlements.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/soldier-neil-dodsworth-launches-class-action-over-home-sale-losses-1.2781617

Note that this issue has been raised in question period yesterday and last week.  Let's hope for a quick resolution for those affected.

POC is Mr Dan Wallace at McInnis Cooper (Halifax).


----------



## TCM621 (1 Oct 2014)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> Anouncement:
> 
> Class action lawsuit launched on behalf of soldiers who were systematically denied their HEA entitlements.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/soldier-neil-dodsworth-launches-class-action-over-home-sale-losses-1.2781617
> 
> ...


Aren't class action lawsuits illegal for serving members?


----------



## heavy reader (1 Oct 2014)

As this suit would likely include both CAF and retired CAF (due to the timelines), I would say no. I had asked this question of a very highly respected lawyer who indicated that we, as serving solders, still have some rights. Also, as the underlying issue (systemic HEA denial) has already been through the Judicial Review and found in favor of a CAF member, it is simply an administrative efficiency to address the systemic issue as a class, rather than each individual having to take it upon themselves (at great cost to each member, and to the system).

Further, as the grievance system had been exhausted and the findings of the CDS in several cases encourage the use of the federal courts to resolve the outstanding issue, it would be (imho) counter intuitive that soldiers would be in trouble for following the direction expressed by the CDS.

The goal should be to resolve the issue for the troops. If it takes an act of parliament (or the federal courts in this case), so be it. No-one else has addressed the issue on behalf of the troops (that I am aware of).

It would appear that the intent of the action is to resolve an administrative error, not troops banding together to affect government. I encourage anyone involved to stay within their arcs, and let the legal team earn their pay.

Ubique!


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2014)

QR&O 19.10 is the most applicable. And since this is not an attempt to change policy they may be in the clear.

Note: do not take legal advice from strangers on the internet.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Note: do not take legal advice from strangers on the internet.


Is that legal advice?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is that legal advice?



Perhaps I should amend it to read "Don't take any life changing advice on the internet.  Consult a trusted professional."

I am certain that DND's lawyers are looking at all aspects of this right now.  I'm equally certain that they won't be going on public message boards giving advice, or discussing what they may do in response...


----------



## DAA (1 Oct 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps I should amend it to read "Don't take any life changing advice on the internet.  Consult a trusted professional."



I can see it now, DND Lawyers dealing with Treasury Board Lawyers   ----->    :duel:


----------



## kratz (1 Oct 2014)

Somehow, I think Treasury Board’s pencils  swords  are sharper.


----------



## Tibbson (1 Oct 2014)

kratz said:
			
		

> Somehow, I think Treasury Board’s pencils  swords  are sharper.



Oh I wouldnt bet on it.  Most CF lawyers I've ever dealt with seemed to have started out as contract lawyers...even those practicing criminal law for DND.


----------



## Pusser (3 Oct 2014)

CF lawyers (i.e. legal officers) won't be anywhere near this.  All lawyers that represent the government (including DND) in the civilian court system come from the Justice Department.


----------



## heavy reader (3 Oct 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> CF lawyers (i.e. legal officers) won't be anywhere near this.  All lawyers that represent the government (including DND) in the civilian court system come from the Justice Department.



The JAG has been all over this, and the lawyers at the DOJ who were dealing with this issue (representing the Crown) were CAF lawyers seconded to the DOJ. The legal councel for the Crown in the case was a TBS lawyer (the same lawyer as in the SISIP class action lawsuit).  Of note, since the TBS lost their case on the IRP bid rigging scandal, they hired a full time team of lawyers. A copy of the news article may be found below. Note that the individual mentioned in the case was the originator of the now infamous quote: "There are no depressed markets in Canada".


Judge awards $10M more to victim of ‘outrageous’ Canadian government misconduct 
by Kathryn May, May 7, 2013, Ottawa Citizen 

An Ontario Superior Court judge awarded an additional $10 million in lost profits, interest and costs to the losing bidder of a relocation contract, chastising the “reprehensible,” “outrageous” and “shocking” misconduct of the federal government for rigging the deal and trying to deceive the court. In a hard-hitting decision, Justice Peter Annis took the extraordinary step of awarding Envoy Relocation Services full costs in its legal battle to prove bureaucrats intentionally turned a blind eye to the rigging of the 2004 contract, which helped give Royal LePage Relocation Services a monopoly on moving thousands of military, RCMP and bureaucrats to new postings. 

*All told, the government has been ordered to pay Envoy $40 million.* “(The) court reaction expressed in terms of its shock or intensity of feeling caused by the misconduct of the party is a factor in the award costs on an elevated scale,” Annis wrote. “As indicated, I have no difficulty concluding that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. Indeed, I would have ordered punitive damages but for the overriding factor of concluding that such an award would have served the purpose of denunciation or deterrence.” 
On the heels of Annis’ latest ruling on costs, the government filed Monday a notice to appeal his original decision, which dealt a devastating blow to the integrity of the government’s procurement system. Last month, Annis concluded Envoy should have won the five-year deal in 2004 that bureaucrats rigged to go to RLRS, their preferred supplier. 

For Envoy’s Bruce Atyeo, the judge’s ruling on costs was another victory in a legal dispute that has wound its way through channels of hearings, investigations and audits before unfolding in last year’s lengthy trial. The government’s decision to appeal, however, could add years and millions of dollars more to the fight. “An appeal doesn’t change the evidence that’s on the table. It will never go away and people can draw their own conclusions,” Atyeo said. “The decision on costs is even more important because he identified the egregious conduct and distilled what he considered reprehensible conduct.” Envoy sued the government for $62 million in lost profits and damages over its handling of the 2002 and 2004 contracts after a bombshell report in 2006 by then-auditor general Sheila Fraser concluded the 2004 bidding process favoured RLRS. 

Annis originally ordered the government pay Envoy $30 million to cover lost profits, plus costs and interest, for two contracts — one for relocating the military and the other for moving RCMP and bureaucrats to new postings. On Friday, he released his ruling on the costs and interest owing to Envoy and increased Envoy’s lost profits award to $32 million, plus $3 million for interest and $4.7 million for costs. Envoy’s actual costs were more than awarded but the judge didn’t fully compensate for the time its lawyers spent pursuing issues around an internal Public Works investigation during the trial. Full costs are awarded in rare cases to send the message of the court’s disapproval.Annis said he felt the government deserved to be chastised for its misconduct in handling of the deal, as well as its conduct during litigation. 

Annis found that bureaucrats allowed RLRS, as incumbent, to use its inside knowledge when it bid zero for property management services, which hardly any transferees used. The volumes for these services used in the bid documents were 250 times higher than actually used, and gave RLRS an advantage worth $48 million over Envoy, its closest rival. These inflated volumes were in both the 2002 and 2004 contracts. Evidence showed that RLRS then charged transferees for the service it promised to do for free. Internal documents, which the government initially concealed, showed the key bureaucrats managing the process in Public Works and Treasury Board not only knew about, but “authorized” the charges. Annis also found this preference for RLRS to win in 2004 was also behind selection criteria that heavily weighted technical merit over price, which favoured RLRS as the incumbent with a system already up and running. 

But Annis said the misconduct continued when the lawsuit began and government failed to turn over documents that would have routinely been made available in normal court procedures. Annis argued the government deserved to chastised for concealing documents, particularly some email exchanges and the commitment forms for third-party services and their pricing, which proved to be critical evidence on which the case turned. It revealed that key bureaucrats knew that RLRS was charging for property management. 

Annis said that withholding the documents, which were only turned over when he ordered them produced, were an attempt to deceive the court. “The concealment of crucial evidence that played a major role in the outcome of the case and misled the court is grave misconduct. *Moreover, this conduct was intended to conceal significant deliberate reprehensible conduct prior to litigation.” As a result, Annis said the case met many of the tests for an award of full costs: the “grave” misconduct; the case would not have gone to court if it were not for that misconduct; the misconduct forced Envoy to exhaust all legal avenues; the misconduct misled or deceived the court; and the matter involved a “scurrilous attack on the administration of justice.” Annis said he would add to the list a “sentiment” that the court is so shocked by the “gravity of the misconduct or degree of deception” that it needs “an extra dose of chastisement” to show its disapproval. * 

But Annis said he was particularly taken aback that public servants, who should be defenders of fairness and public interest, were the “perpetrators of the misconduct.” 
*“Canadians count on our public service acting honestly, fairly and with the utmost integrity … When it does not adhere to fundamental principles of good governance and fairness in important matters such as the procurement of goods and services, the courts and the public are shocked, breeding cynicism and lack of respect for our institutions.“ * 

Annis said the government’s misconduct also reshaped Canada’s relocation industry — RLRS is now Brookfield Global Relocation Services and is one of the biggest firms of its kind in the world. He said the government showed “contempt” for Envoy by favouring RLRSand “all the untruthfulness” to hide this preference for six years while letting Envoy fight. He argued that the government also betrayed its own employees who were being transferred by charging them for a service that should have been free. “There is also no argument that the issues raised in this action were important to the law of procurement in Canada. The case involved a significant contract that negatively affected the relocation industry in Canada and exposed a serious lack of oversight and misconduct on the part of government officers who acted in a contemptuous fashion.”


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Oct 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?
> 
> Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."
> 
> Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get.



I would disagree.  Professionals with decades of experience do have moving expenses paid, and a number of other perks, in most large companies.

If you spend literally millions training someone to do a job, it's pretty stupid to lose them over relative nickel and diming for a forced move.  If GoC wants to cut costs; reduce the moves.  Moves are more frequent because a lot of training establishments are centralized; so if you don't want new trainees to move, create more local training.  Otherwise it's the cost of doing business.  It's not a sense of entitlement to not bend over and take it from the GoC, particularily when the costs they incur are due to institutional level decisions.


----------



## Tibbson (3 Oct 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> CF lawyers (i.e. legal officers) won't be anywhere near this.  All lawyers that represent the government (including DND) in the civilian court system come from the Justice Department.



Yes, I understand that.  I've had the "pleasure" of needing DOJ lawyers twice.  Both times they have done an outstanding job.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Oct 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> CF lawyers (i.e. legal officers) won't be anywhere near this.  All lawyers that represent the government (including DND) in the civilian court system come from the Justice Department.



If any CO is considering laying charges for disobeying QR&O 19.10 I am quite certain military lawyers will be involved in reviewing specimen charges.


----------



## Tibbson (3 Oct 2014)

"BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?
Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."
Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get."

I know the above quote is dated but since it was brought up again I couldnt disagree more with it.  Most "civilian" companies dont require their employees move at all, not to mention often.  If an employee chooses to leave one position with the company and take another then in the vast majority of the time they do so on their own dime.  It is their choice to take the out of area position.  When companies move their staff they often pay more then the govt pays.  

In fact, the last home I purchased I bought directly from the bank.  It turned out the bank had transfered one of their branch execs and when she was unable to sell her home in time for the relocation the bank bought the employees house for its assessed value and she was able to relocate at the employers behest with one less major worry.  

I'm not saying the CF should buy the homes if we cant sell but why not work it into the contract with Brookfield?  After all, they make us get an assessment.  I bet the definition of "depressed market" woukd change once Brookfield was on the hook for the loss rather then the employees who cant fight back.


----------



## TCM621 (3 Oct 2014)

Could you imagine the lawsuit if you were fired for refusing a cross country move, in the private sector?


----------



## MJP (3 Oct 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Could you imagine the lawsuit if you were fired for refusing a cross country move, in the private sector?



What would the lawsuit be based on?   No one has the right to employment for life.   Companies within the bounds of the law following proper notice or severance rules can fire anyone they like.

Now friending on the company it certainly won't make for good publicity but it is their business and they can do what they want.


----------



## TCM621 (4 Oct 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> What would the lawsuit be based on?   No one has the right to employment for life.   Companies within the bounds of the law following proper notice or severance rules can fire anyone they like.
> 
> Now friending on the company it certainly won't make for good publicity but it is their business and they can do what they want.


Termination without cause. Your employer can't force you to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to keep your job.

All you would have to prove to the judge was that you were unable/unwilling to move and you were fired because if it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Oct 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Termination without cause. Your employer can't force you to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to keep your job.
> 
> All you would have to prove to the judge was that you were unable/unwilling to move and you were fired because if it.



Speaking as a long-time Union guy you wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on..............jobs move all the time and, if your job moves and you still want it, then you move.   Mind you I would go in in swinging for a good buyout.


----------



## MJP (4 Oct 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Termination without cause. Your employer can't force you to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to keep your job.
> 
> All you would have to prove to the judge was that you were unable/unwilling to move and you were fired because if it.



The laws are not that simple.

Termination without cause is perfectly legal as long as you follow proper notice and/or severance requirements of current legislation and the employee's contract.  Wrongful dismissal is when they breach those requirements, that could apply in this case but generally only to the lack of notice/severance.  Termination of people can happen with or without cause.  A company does not have to continue to employ you if they don't want to.

The term you are looking for is constructive dismissal where a company substantially changes nature of employment and requires the employee to conform to it.  I don't know much about it but asking someone to move without that being in the contract is certainly one of things that could be considered under its umbrella.  So there is a a legal recourse, although if a company was smart they wouldn't terminate someone for not moving but that their position is redundant in that area or something similar.


----------



## GAP (4 Oct 2014)

When my company was sold, the new owner was not required to hire me. 

If he had not hired me to continue in my position, the previous employer was only required to pay severence, and then only if  he had not given the required number of weeks notice of termination.

 Otherwise nada...

It is what it is.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Oct 2014)

This just published from Question Period on 30 Sep 2014


Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

"Mr. Speaker, Master Warrant Officer Dodsworth was denied compensation under the home equity assistance program. His family lost $72,000. Neil Dodsworth spent 33 years serving our country, including in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

The home equity assistance program is meant to protect Canadian Forces members from financial losses when required to relocate. CAF members should not have to hire lawyers to fight for compensation. Why are our soldiers denied this funding, and why has the government not fixed this problem?"

Dan Albas Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

"Mr. Speaker, since this matter is before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment on this case."

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

"Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time this has happened. The government knows about this problem and has not fixed it. It is a pattern under the government.

Canadian Forces members serve our country proudly and should not have to come home to fight bureaucracy, whether it is Canadian Forces members fighting for home equity assistance, disability benefits, or accessing mental health services or veterans and their families fighting for benefits.

Canadian soldiers are not getting what they deserve. When will the government treat Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans with the respect they deserve?"


Rob Nicholson Minister of National Defence

"Mr. Speaker, they get respect and admiration every day from this government. No government has done a better job of sticking up for all these issues, reaching out to assist these individuals and investing in them than this government. I am very proud of our record in that area."

From a personal point of view, no-one from DND has reached out to assist, I have found that the opposite has been the case.  

Oh wait...I did have an olive branch presented...June 5, 2013, again in the Standing Committee on National Defence (Parliament): http://openparliament.ca/committees/national-defence/41-1/84/robert-chisholm-1/ 

Col Russell Mann

"Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity.

I think I can give at least a partial answer, while acknowledging that compensation and benefits is an area of the department that, as the honourable Mr. Alexander has pointed out, is another part of the department, and the director general of compensation and benefits is in a position with the authority and responsibility to develop a home equity assistance program.

*Certainly home equity loss affects all families, and my heart goes out to this major and his family, who are clearly suffering. I would like to be able to do more for that family. * One of the things I can tell you from my role in Military Family Services is that I hear from families all across the nation through many different means. When I become aware of a particular case, I ask my team to try to find any way at our disposal to deal with the conditions that are caused by military service. As I said, that includes relocation, and one of the consequences sometimes is loss on the sale of a home.

We do have some means available to attempt to provide relief for members if we understand the full context. I would be more than willing to hear the full context to see if we can bring other services to bear within Morale and Welfare Services that are non-governmental but are intended to support families—for example, the military families fund, which is a fund of last resort for military families who are in distress and have nowhere else to turn.

I think there may be a partial way to deal with the member to whom you refer, sir, but I do have to defer and say that the director general of compensation and benefits is in a better position to give you good information about home equity programming and policy."

I attempted to contact Col Mann after this, to ask for his office's assistance as he indicated in parliament, however after several months, nothing heard.  After multiple attemps, I was advised that I knew what was available and I should refer to their website.

As an aside the CFMWS cannot assist with any issues above $5,000 (as it does not "resolve" a problem).

As I had to take my situation through the grievance process (won twice), ombudsmans office (supported), and Federal Court of Canada with nothing but roadblocks in my way, I wonder what component of "reaching out" is being referred to.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2014)

Tony Clement should be answering these questions in Parliament. As much as DND may want to provide HEA for its soldiers, its TB that is denying these claims. Putting questions to MND in Question Period is just red herrings, which unfortunately are typical of any NDP question.

As much as I'd like to see us get a champion in the HoC, I have a sneaking suspicion that we're being used for good press for the NDP (who are as anti-military as they come).


----------



## heavy reader (6 Oct 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tony Clement should be answering these questions in Parliament. As much as DND may want to provide HEA for its soldiers, its TB that is denying these claims. Putting questions to MND in Question Period is just red herrings, which unfortunately are typical of any NDP question.
> 
> As much as I'd like to see us get a champion in the HoC, I have a sneaking suspicion that we're being used for good press for the NDP (who are as anti-military as they come).



The quote from question period was addressed to Dan Albas Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. The MND jumped in and answered the question on behalf of the Government (to whom the question was raised).
.


----------



## TCM621 (6 Oct 2014)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> The quote from question period was addressed to Dan Albas Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. The CDS jumped in and answered the question on behalf of the Government (to whom the question was raised).
> .


The CDS or MND?


----------



## heavy reader (7 Oct 2014)

MND, my error.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Oct 2014)

Here is the video from the House of Commons:

http://politwitter.ca/page/videos/id/41803


----------



## heavy reader (3 Nov 2014)

Details of CLASS ACTION- HOME EQUITY ASSISTANCE

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Supreme_Court/documents/Statementofclaim.pdf


----------



## Tibbson (3 Nov 2014)

I had my kids out trick or treating the other night and I crossed paths with a real estate agent who lives in my neighborhood.  She knows I'm a military member who is still trying to sell a home so I don't have to be on IR any more and she noted in passing that her office had just sent out some sort of a notice they had received in regards to HEA.  She did mention that she hadn't read it yet but I haven't been able to get in touch with her since then and I'm heading back off leave later today.  Is anyone aware of what she may be speaking of or is this just likely some internal memo within her agency?  I haven't seen any news or earth shattering revelations online yet but I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone else had heard of anything.


----------



## heavy reader (3 Nov 2014)

TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT NEEDS TO PAY MILITARY FAMILIES THEIR SYSTEMICALLY DENIED RELOCATION ENTITLEMENTS! 

Details at http://healoss.wordpress.com/ .Feel free to send the President of the Treasury Board your thoughts directly: tony.clement@parl.gc.ca  Our military families deserve better than waiting 4 1/2 years for wrongly denied entitlements.  

PLEASE SHARE!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Nov 2014)

If I did I think I'd have to create a ghost account!


----------



## CountDC (5 Nov 2014)

I do like that they specify in the Class action lawsuit 

"the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price"

Saw too often where members that didn't get their asking price would try to claim a loss even though they still recieved more than they paid.  Buying at $200k, listing 2 years later at $350k and settling for $325k does not make a $25k loss.


----------



## TCM621 (5 Nov 2014)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I do like that they specify in the Class action lawsuit
> 
> "the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price"
> 
> Saw too often where members that didn't get their asking price would try to claim a loss even though they still recieved more than they paid.  Buying at $200k, listing 2 years later at $350k and settling for $325k does not make a $25k loss.


I briefly read it but was there something about assessed price? If a guy paid 70 grand in 95 and was posted in the local area for 20 years of course he while get more than he paid but he still could have had a substantial chuck of equity wiped out if he posted in the midst of an economic downturn. Or maybe he refinanced based on the newer value and owes substantially more than he paid initially.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Nov 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I briefly read it but was there something about assessed price? If a guy paid 70 grand in 95 and was posted in the local area for 20 years of course he while get more than he paid but he still could have had a substantial chuck of equity wiped out if he posted in the midst of an economic downturn. Or maybe he refinanced based on the newer value and owes substantially more than he paid initially.



Yep, that is the situation I'm in.  It annoys me that it's referred to as a home EQUITY assistance program.  I bought my current home for $320,00.  I'm posted and currently on IR because we have not been able to sell.  The home was assessed twice by two independent appraisers and it was valued at $334,000 based on my market and the other homes for sale.  

Essentially I can sell for up to $15,000 under my appraised value, or $319,000, and still take advantage of the HEA provisions without having to apply to the TB for payment HOWEVER they will only make up the difference between that $319,000 sale price and the original $320,000 I paid for it.  I'm essentially losing up to $14,000 in equity.

As it stands how we have lowered the price to our original purchase price but no nibbles.  I can't afford to lose any more so I'm now on IR.  Funny thing is, because the system refuses (is unable...unwilling....) to pay out more under the HEA program I now suck $1800 a month from the coffers to pay my IR expenses.  

Hardly a sound fiscal rationing on their part but nobody ever accused the government of being smart with their money.  As my grandmother would say, "penny wise and pound foolish".


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Yep, that is the situation I'm in.  It annoys me that it's referred to as a home EQUITY assistance program.  I bought my current home for $320,00.  I'm posted and currently on IR because we have not been able to sell.  The home was assessed twice by two independent appraisers and it was valued at $334,000 based on my market and the other homes for sale.
> 
> Essentially I can sell for up to $15,000 under my appraised value, or $319,000, and still take advantage of the HEA provisions without having to apply to the TB for payment HOWEVER they will only make up the difference between that $319,000 sale price and the original $320,000 I paid for it.  I'm essentially losing up to $14,000 in equity.
> 
> ...



I have always said that we will spend 10 bucks to save one; it's ridiculous.


----------



## WhereYouTo (23 Nov 2014)

"I'm not saying the CF should buy the homes if we cant sell but why not work it into the contract with Brookfield?"

As time goes on, recognizing that I'm biased, I think that the CF should take my home off my hands if an excessive period of time has past - like say I've gone through all my envelopes.  I don't even want fair market value.  Just near my purchase price.

A person on my street worked for CHMC - they have a guaranteed sales clause - although I heard that is going.  I was pretty jealous 90 days after their house went on the market and CHMC took it off there hands.  I'm in the same boat as some of the others.  Posted this past summer, house still hasn't sold.  We went for the move, so now we have two houses.  Dealing with Brookfield now for TDRA, and they've been mostly good, but I don't like the way the system is setup - I feel like the military should have a keen interest in whether my house has sold or not.  I know I'm a grown-up, but I really didn't feel like I got a lot of good advice on what I should done in a soft market.

Happy to move around, be deployed, whatever, -  that is what I signed up for.  I'm not so happy about putting my family's finances at risk - probably the first time I've seriously considered an exit strategy out of the military.  There is a lot of liability owning two houses. 

Anyways, thought I'd mope around - misery loves company.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2014)

WhereYouTo said:
			
		

> "I'm not saying the CF should buy the homes if we cant sell but why not work it into the contract with Brookfield?"



That sure would make postings easier.  
I've had two moves with my present employer and the first time they wouldn't let me in the 'guaranteed price/ sell" like you described your neighbours as having because I had UFFI insulation.  
The second time I was in the program, and even though I made pretty good money on my first sell,  [without the buy program] and lost pretty good on my second [with the program], I would take the 'guarantee' again in a heartbeat just for the lack of stress of wondering how long I'm carrying two houses.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

WhereYouTo said:
			
		

> "I'm not saying the CF should buy the homes if we cant sell but why not work it into the contract with Brookfield?"
> 
> As time goes on, recognizing that I'm biased, I think that the CF should take my home off my hands if an excessive period of time has past - like say I've gone through all my envelopes.  I don't even want fair market value.  Just near my purchase price.
> 
> ...



The last house I bought was empty when I bought it.  Seems the previous owner worked for one of the major banks in Canada and the bank posted the employee across the country.  After a few months of having the house on the market and not sold the bank (the employer) bought the house so the employee could move.  When it came time for me to buy it the sale price was listed, I came in with a lower offer and when it was rejected they basically came back saying if you are going to counter offer don't even bother countering below X value which was essentially what the bank had invested in it.  The X amount was pretty near where we were going to counter anyway so we agreed to that price and bought the house.  

Now, I know there are various TB guidelines that will essentially stop such an arrangement by DND but I wonder if relocation companies like Brookfield had ever considered the business case for expanding their business to buying and reselling the homes after a certain point.  Considering there is already an up to $15k home equity amount built into the envelopes (which I'm most likely going to have to make use of by the time we are able to sell) plus 6 months of separation allowance (so far) at $1700 a month, it seems there is already $25,200 being spent because I can't sell.  

As it stands now my situation, and the situations of many other members, is only costing not only DND a bucket load of money but it's also costing the members both money and stress as their families remain separated.  If it wasn't for the fact that I want to move my family I'd be inclined to keep the house at the price we wanted and if it doesn't sell I'd just keep sucking the IR money for as long as I could.  Its almost worth the $20+ K a year in govt money to wait it out for a price I want for my home.


----------



## navig8ur (24 Nov 2014)

In the early 90's the practice of purchasing unsold homes was in place.  In some markets it had the effect of further depressing prices and eventually the policy was discontinued.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

For sale by me, and therefore costing DND big bucks in separation and HEA or for sale by a holding company....it's still for sale.  But like I said, it would never fly for a whole host of other reasons I'm sure.


----------



## heavy reader (24 Nov 2014)

Its all coming out in the wash now...

http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/government-pays-35m-to-end-relocation-contract-dispute

The Conservative government paid $35 million to quietly settle a lawsuit over the handling of bids for a relocation deal that an Ontario Superior Court judge assailed as “outrageous” and rigged by bureaucrats to favour the winning bidder.

The Public Accounts show payments went to Envoy Relocation Services last year for “settlement of claim for missed financial opportunities” from the three departments: the RCMP, National Defence and Treasury Board.

The Integrated Relocation Program costs the government about $300 million a year to relocate employees to new postings — not including moving costs, which are covered by another contract. The government relocates between 15,000 and 20,000 federal employees a year, with the military accounting for 85 per cent of those moves.

Envoy was the losing bidder for the 2004 contract. The firm took the government to court, successfully arguing bureaucrats “turned a blind eye” to the rigging of the 2004 relocation contract to favour the winner Royal LePage Relocation Services (RLRS) — now Brookfield Global Relocation Services. The company has had a monopoly on the contract since 1999. The lawsuit revolved around the 2002 and 2004 contracts.

The government filed notice to appeal the court ruling, which awarded Envoy an unprecedented $40 million and delivered a major blow to the integrity of the government’s procurement system.

Justice Peter Annis delivered a withering decision on what he called the government’s “misconduct” in the bidding process and later during litigation. He called the government’s handling of the deal “reprehensible”, “outrageous” and “shocking. ” He also urged an investigation to determine how far knowledge about the misconduct went up the “governmental hierarchy.”

Annis awarded Envoy $30 million to cover lost profits, plus costs and interest, for two contracts — one for relocating the military and the other for moving RCMP and bureaucrats to new postings.

In a separate ruling on costs, he increased the award to cover Envoy’s lost profits and awarded full costs and interest totalling nearly $10 million to send a message about the court’s disapproval of government’s behaviour.

That government eventually abandoned any appeal and quietly settled the case with Envoy for $5 million less than the court’s award. The Public Accounts showed National Defence paid $28 million, the RCMP $4.2 million, and Treasury Board $2.8 million.

Envoy president Bruce Atyeo, who wouldn’t discuss the settlement, said he and his partner spent $12 million and more than a decade on the case, which wound through a series of tribunals, probes and hearings before landing in court.

“As condemning as that judgment was, nothing happened,” he said.

“I am dumbfounded that there has been no accountability … I don’t know what more the government needed to hear for there to be some punitive action here. People broke the law and yet everyone is walking around scot free and some of the people are still involved in the same jobs.”

The 2009 contract was supposed to fix the controversy and allegations of bid-rigging that surrounded the 2002 and 2004 contracts. But it also ended up mired in allegations of unfairness.

Atyeo appealed to the auditor-general to investigate the 2009 contract, which he argued ruled out all competitors other than RLRS. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson initiated a two-part investigation into the contract, which expires next month.

The AG’s office said it regularly examines procurement issues and the 2009 contract was flagged as an “area of higher risk and interest to Parliament and Canadians.”

The first part of the audit focused on whether key players — Public Works, Treasury Board Secretariat, National Defence and the RCMP — followed the contracting rules. That audit, released in Ferguson’s May report, found a series of missteps and delays during the 2009 contracting process that stopped suppliers — other than the incumbent — from bidding on the contract. It found, however, no evidence that it was done intentionally.

The second part, to be released Tuesday in Ferguson’s next report, will examine the delivery of relocation services, including whether the military and RCMP lived up to their responsibilities in managing the program. It also examined the extent they monitored the services provided to employees, as well as financial management and performance.

The military’s “final move” policy that landed Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie in hot water for claiming $72,000 in expenses to move within Ottawa was among the benefits offered by the military’s relocation policy. The Conservatives have since announced they will no longer pay this benefit for retiring military personnel who re-locate within a 40-kilometre radius because “a move down the road or within close vicinity is not defensible to taxpayers.”

Ferguson’s report will also include chapters on Canada’s response to international humanitarian crises, transnational crime, mental health services for veterans, financial support to the auto industry, preservation and access of government record, and the effectiveness of the Nutrition North Canada program to get healthy food to isolated communities.

kmay@ottawacitizen.com

By the numbers
$300 million: What government spends on relocation

$30 million: Annual administration fee to contractor

18,000- 20,000: Number of military and RCMP personnel and public servants annually relocated

$12 million: Envoy Relocation Services’ legal and other costs since 1999

$40 million: Court award for lost profits, costs and interest.

$35 million: Government settlement with Envoy.


----------



## heavy reader (18 Dec 2014)

*Dec 2014 Update on HEA sytemic denial*

TBS has produced a new "housing market analysis" for Bon Accord and the Edmonton CMA;

The report has many failings including "manipulating the date" to get their "findings";

The report is inconclusive, yet it concludes that Bon Accord is NOT a depressed market;

Our legal team has sent an analysis of the report to TBS relocation reconiseration committee;

We are awaiting the decision from TBS before revealing next steps.

If you are in the "HEA catch 22" and need help or just an ear, please call me over the holidays.

Merry Christmas everyone, thanks for all the support to date - we (Juanita, Maximilian, Mackenzie, Henry, Emma and Trillium) are greatful.

Marcus
(902) 466-4339


----------



## heavy reader (8 Jan 2015)

Welcome S.P. to the HEA club. Will call back tonight. Sorry to hear you got trapped in the HEA issue. Will do our best to asssit.


----------



## heavy reader (14 Jan 2015)

See attached for latest development on the systemic denial of home equity assistance by Treasury Board Secretariat.

https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ministerclementremarcusbrauerjan2015.pdf


----------



## heavy reader (15 Jan 2015)

*THIS *  is what happens when leaders fail to tackle difficult issues:

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Supreme_Court/documents/Statementofclaim.pdf


----------



## heavy reader (15 Jan 2015)

Here we go...if  you are posted in Edmonton, CBC reports that:

"In Calgary, home sales were down 24.6 per cent monthly. That mirrors a similar *trend in Edmonton (down 26.4 per cent)*, Regina (down 12.3 per cent) and Saskatoon (down 12.2 per cent)." http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-home-prices-rise-3-8-to-405-233-average-in-december-1.2901660

So what? Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) still refuses to decide on Home Equity Assistance cases from 2010, and there is an ongoing Class Action on the same issue. I doubt that TBS can wait this one out as there may very well be a whole lot of unsatisified members/families this APS.

My recommendation: Start gathering evidence of a depressed market now (newpaper clippings as above, statistics, opinions) as you never know if you are going to be next to loose your shirt.  If you end up not needing them, no problem. If you do, building a case for a depressed market with your realtor is not something you can do effectively during your HHT or after relocating. If anyone requires assistance or has concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will help where I can.


----------



## Brasidas (15 Jan 2015)

heavy reader said:
			
		

> "In Calgary, home sales were down 24.6 per cent monthly. That mirrors a similar *trend in Edmonton (down 26.4 per cent)*...



That's number of houses sold compared to last year, rather than decline in money that changed hands in any given transaction, right?


----------



## Occam (15 Jan 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> That's number of houses sold compared to last year, rather than decline in money that changed hands in any given transaction, right?



I think you're right - those figures refer to volume, not prices.  There's a link to a map of home prices within the article, it shows Edmonton rising from $385,303 in November to $462,513 in December.  (Talk about a volatile market!)

However, the article mentions "The slump in oil prices is likely to trigger a housing downturn in commodity-driven markets, like Calgary and Edmonton — markets that were once expected to be among the strongest," wrote Diana Petramala of TD Economics in a research note.

If they start laying off oil patch workers, and they've already started - those prices are going to plummet just as fast as they rose, I would imagine.


----------



## heavy reader (16 Jan 2015)

Agreed. Also, housing market forecasts are about as good as used gitch. The intent of providing the article is to raise awareness for those folks who may be posted this APS to start doing their due dilligence in anticipation of a worst case scenario (as happened between 2007-2010 in Edmonton and surrounding communities).

Good catch - its all about interpretation!


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Jan 2015)

This APS will be a slaughter in AB if oil and gas starts laying people off. I have some old school buddies that work up there and they're saying most of the exploration and services companies are either starting to lay off now or are warning all their employees that it's coming. 

That's going to really impact house prices.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jan 2015)

Absolutely. Probably the same with the troops in Cold Lake as well. Here's hoping nobody gets hit too hard, or the CMs see the light and decide to leave people out there for a year until things stabilize.


----------



## Occam (16 Jan 2015)

Might take more than a year, though.  Some experts are saying oil could be sub-$25/bbl by the start of summer.


----------



## Strike (16 Jan 2015)

Because of other projects still on the go that can't be stopped, it's actually estimated that housing prices will still go up another 2.9 percent this year in Edmonton.  Putting our own house up in 2 weeks so here's hoping we don't get affected.  On our street there's only one person doing anything related to the oil industry and that's my husband, so that's not a huge issue in our neighbourhood.


----------



## heavy reader (19 Jan 2015)

Good luck Strike! Let us know if you need any help.


----------



## heavy reader (19 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Might take more than a year, though.  Some experts are saying oil could be sub-$25/bbl by the start of summer.



When I applied for HEA, I had to gather all the stats myself. Luckily, the tycoons in Alberta have been posting their progress for major facilities and projects for some time. Have a look at this handy tool they made http://albertacanada.com/business/statistics/inventory-of-major-projects.aspx?projectStatus=7&region=&costMin=%245+Million&costMinValue=5&costMax=%2415000+Million&costMaxValue=15000&searchQuery=http%3A%2F%2Falbertacanada.com%3A80%2Fbusiness%2Fstatistics%2Finventory-of-major-projects.aspx%3Fform%3D3%26projectType%3D%26projectStatus%3D%26region%3D%26constituency%3D%26reirDivision%3D%26municipality%3D%26costMin%3D%245+Million%26costMinValue%3D5%26costMax%3D%2415000+Million%26costMaxValue%3D15000%26newProjects%3D%26sortBy%3D&pageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Falbertacanada.com%3A80%2Fbusiness%2Fstatistics%2Finventory-of-major-projects.aspx 


As of today, there are $15 Billion worth of projects on hold in the Bon Accord area, I expect this to climb.  It will be interesting to see how this changes over time.


----------



## heavy reader (21 Jan 2015)

Reference: A. FCC case # http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc488/2014fc488.html
B. 'the Hill Times' (19 Jan 2015) 

Congradulations to Ms d’Auray (former Secretary of the Treasury Board) on her new role *as Canada’s ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris*.







Your role in representing Canada in this important position is an impressive achivement in your career. 

For those who are not aware, Ms. D'auray was the senior public servant responsible for denying the Home Equity Assistance file at TBS. It is sort of ironic to see how the accountability of such atrocious actions, getting caught in the Federal Court of Canada (ref A), had no impact on her career.

As for the HEA file, it has been almost 5 years without resolution, and 7 months since we won in Federal Court against the Treasury Board. We cannot even get a response from TBS on how long they will sit on this (likely after the election).

So...how come the good guys continue to get screwed and those who created, hid and failed to resolve the problem are promoted and rewarded? 

I wish her the best in her new position and I hope that she can sleep at night knowing there are HUNDREDS of CAF families destroyed because of this maladministration. And I hope your *RELOCATION to PARIS * goes well.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jan 2015)

Its the same all over.  Ever seen someone promoted and posted just to get them out of the job they are in and are screwing up?  Sucks but some times never change.


----------



## 762gunner (22 Jan 2015)

In Edmonton, had to buy a townhouse for $250k (leaving out details as to why, not important). Supposed to get posted, can sell for $220K.  Two years left in CE contract. CoC and CM saying get posted or get out, tough luck about the contract.  Not much choice there.  That's the military and Brookfield for you.  I almost agree, don't join the CAF.


----------



## inndiera (24 Jan 2015)

ok this might be a long shot:
can someone please explain in detail how is home equity assistance calculated? Just got an offer on a condo today, brookfield is closed till monday. It's abit of a low ball offer. Trying to come up w a counter offer, but the market is basically forcing me to sell at close to 20,000$ loss compared to purchase price. I read the brookfield relocation policies...but it's not very clear at all...The whole 80% from core...then the diff covered by customs envelope. I am ok w a loss on the place...but it would be good to know how much of a loss I will be taking and what my bottom line is...
Can someone please PM me and I can send actual numbers and figure out a counter? My deadline to return counter is sunday...brookfield is gone...so effing confusing....I am I am holding down two residences for 6 months already and the interest is hurting my frugal chinese soul!!

HELP!!!


----------



## Occam (25 Jan 2015)

I'm pretty sure this is how it would work for you if you lost $20K on the selling price from the buying price:

80% of $15K gets reimbursed from core;
20% of $15K gets reimbursed from custom; 
remaining $5K gets covered if you can achieve the impossible and get TBS to declare your market a depressed area.


----------



## heavy reader (10 Feb 2015)

Update: http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/02/05/major-still-fighting-for-housing-compensation


HALIFAX - A report that is central to a dispute between military members and the federal government over housing compensation is deeply flawed and should be tossed out, says a 25-year veteran who claims the ongoing feud is devastating his family.

The study examined the housing market in Bon Accord, Alta., to determine if it was depressed from 2007 to 2010, when Maj. Marcus Brauer bought his home and then sold it at a loss after being transferred to a base in Nova Scotia.

The assessment, done by an appraiser for the Treasury Board, found the community did not meet the definition of a depressed market, which involves a drop of more than 20 per cent.

The finding angered Brauer, who said it is just another delay in a lengthy legal battle with the Treasury Board over compensation dozens of Forces members say they are unfairly being denied.

"I was absolutely livid that they're going out and again for the second time trying to reverse engineer the decision to negatively affect members," Brauer said Thursday in an interview from Vilnius, Lithuania, where he is on duty.

"I wouldn't say it's valid at all."

The finding is a critical part of a fight that has dragged on for five years between Brauer and Ottawa over military members' forced relocations and compensation they can receive for losses on the sales of their homes.

Brauer, a 43-year-old father of five, said he lost $88,000 when he sold his home in Bon Accord after being posted to Halifax, but was granted only $15,000 in compensation after the Treasury Board decided in 2012 it was not a depressed market.

Brauer, who said housing prices dropped 23 per cent over three years, took the matter to Federal Court a year ago and a judge ordered the board to review its decision, which he called "unreasonable."

Brauer and his lawyer, Dan Wallace, said this latest report excluded certain home sale numbers, included the wrong geographic location and used subjective data.

"We frankly don't think this report is any good," Wallace said.

Wallace sent his response to the report to Tony Clement, the minister responsible for the Treasury Board, but has not yet received a response. A spokeswoman for the Treasury Board would only say the review is continuing.

Wallace is also handling a proposed class action on behalf of other Forces members who have suffered financial losses after selling their homes.

New Democrat MP Robert Chisholm, who represents the Halifax-area riding where Brauer lives, pushed Clement in the House of Commons to make a decision without success. He says the board should compensate Brauer, even if it sets a precedent for other members.

"Even if that opened the door to other families, it's a drop in the bucket," he said. "They feel like they're fighting a losing battle, financially and otherwise."

At least 146 military families have had a fraction of their losses covered. Military officials have argued for years that the policy should be changed. The chief of defence staff, the military grievance board and the Canadian Forces ombudsman have all said the Treasury Board position is unfair.

"My family's been destroyed," Brauer said. "I can't carry the army's debt anymore."


----------



## heavy reader (11 Feb 2015)

Opinions from Canadians on the Systemic Home Equity Denial by TBS:

Comments from interview: 

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/02/07/the-emotional-financial-costs-on-military-
families-moving-frequently/  

c_city: Toronto 

d_region: Ontario 

e_country: Canada 

h_comments: Powerful interview this morning -- brought me to tears - listening to Major Marcus 
Brewer (sp) talk about the losses, costs and challenges he and his family has faced - and the 
source of comfort he tries to provide to other military in similar position. Thank you for sharing 
this story -- it must have been difficult for him to break the facade - and show such vulnerability. 
Vulnerability is key to our humanity - and connects us all -- no matter what our job, gender, 
social or financial status. The willingness to speak up, let down our guard and let others in to 
help - takes deep bravery. Hats off to him and CBC 's The Current. If there is contact info for 
him to extend help - please let us know. Thank you . 





c_city: Blenheim 

d_region: Ontario 

h_comments: I was listening to this on my way to work this morning and I was just outraged. I 
personally know people, family members actually who work for the federal government, in very 
high paying positions, that have requested transfers to other areas, to further their career 
aspirations, and the government has paid for the move, paid the rent, and they were even given a 
decorating bonus. If they chose to sell their previous home, to accomodate the move, the closing 
costs and legal fees were paid on both the sale of their current home and the purchase of another. 
Why? Because of the union agreement. Ridiculous waste of my money. Now you tell me, is this 
fair? 

I can't believe that someone that serves their country on the battlefield is worth less than 
someone who serves their country at the computer in their office. This is a disgusting situation 
and we should not be tolerating this If the government is going to spend my money, I want it to 
go to the military families instead of an office worker. This has to change. We should be 
ashamed of ourselves. 

subject: Military Family Poverty 



c_city: Ottawa 

d_region: ON 

h_comments: Hi, 



I listened to your broadcast with interest. I was surprised to hear the government was planning to 
reduce the moves as well. 





I am married to a military member and have also had to deal with having to pay for my husband's 
move. We are recently married and while we knew that we would be dealing with the moves and 
separations we certainly didn't expect to have to pay for them. I am an aerospace engineer and 
my husband is a junior NCO (non-commissioned officer) which to begin with, the military, even 
nowadays doesn't actually deal with very well. Having the spouse at a higher wage/career level 
isn't something that they are particularly prepared to deal with. So we knew we would have some 
difficulty at posting seasons as my career is rather specific and not particularly transposable to 
many places in the country. My husband had originally been told he would remain within 
Ontario which we found good but then when the call came he was told he was going to Cold 
Lake, Alberta and that it was non-negociable. At around the same time, he'd put in a request for a 
remuster, but that wasn't being followed up in any kind of rush, at least not until there was 
significant proding from his part. The remustering got lost in bureaucracy and he got posted to 
Cold Lake. While I remained with my job and career (working for the military but at a much 
higher level ironically) in Ottawa. In the end the remuster actually went through (a bit to our 
surprise) and he ended back in Ottawa after a year in Cold Lake. During that year the military 
did its utmost to get my husband to make me quit my job and career and move to Cold Lake and 
get a job at Zellers. Since I didn't (it would have made no sense either financially or careerwise) 
the pressure continued and that did nothing to help the fact that we were separated by over 3500 
kms and in different time zones. As he was planning his move back, he was told to go over to the 
contractor hired by the military to organize the moves of its military members and did so and 
was assured by both military and the contractor that everything was taken care off and was fine 
and that he needn't worry about it; it was the contractor's specialty and they had the expertise to 
know what was required etc... And the move seemed to go fine. Until six months AFTER the 
move back he got an email from the contractor stating that the contractor had actually approved 
something that he wasn't entitled to, but that he should have checked all the regulations and 
figured it out (despite essentially being told not to because that's what the contractor is hired to 
do) and that we needed to pay back the $2300 that they claimed we owed them for the amount 
the crown would not pay them. Since we refused to pay and argued back to we couldn't be held 
accountable for something they had erred on, the bill actually went UP again to $2600. We filed 
a claim against the charge since we feel we are being charged for something the contractor 
messed up, but were told back in Ottawa by the office in charge of overseeing the contractor that 
really we should have read up on all the regulations and done the math and looked into 
everything to make sure the contractor was correct. This despite being told before to let the 
contractor deal with it. Eventually the office in charge of the claims declared they could only talk 
to my husband through his chain of command, who luckily for us did take it up, but they came 
back and told my husband that the office in charge of dealing with claims were reluctant to take 
the claim on because they had never had to deal with one so expensive and serious. So it was 
sent to the back of the pile and we were told it would probably at least a year or two and they 
garnished my husband's wages to get the money to give to the contractor. 

The financial stress that ensued from them garnishing the wages for the next 6 months were 
enough to cause my husband to break down as there was no forthcoming assistance in sight, 
require counselling and was in no small part responsible for our eventual separation. As the 
military still chooses to pretend there are no problems, and refuse to give the support that we 
need either financially to recoup our funds or psychologically to try and hope to have our 
marriage not break up completely, we have essentially been left to fend for ourselves. When my 



husband requested help when he first started breaking down due to the stress, military sponsored 
counselling was eventually offered to my husband but only six months later, at which point the 
damage was already done. We ended paying for outside counselling out of pocket. Now the 
military is providing counselling, but is also getting ready to post my husband again after two 
years in Ottawa. We still haven't heard from our previous claim and the contractor in charge of 
organizing the moving is still the same. 

While I understand that there is a need to move members around, it's high time the military move 
into the current century and review how it posts its members and how much it loses in terms of 
expertise and money everytime it moves people around for the sake of moving them because 
"that's the policy". Current technology advances mean that people can communicate much more 
easily and that a lot of these moves are not actually required for anything except that "it's the way 
it's always been done". People who sign up to the military essentially sign their lives away to 
defend and fight for our country and they get little thanks in return for the commitment they 
make. 



I can only hope that things move in the right direction and that the 10% reduction announced is 
only the begining of our military getting much better treatment and recognition. 



Cheers, 



subject: Military moving and its effect on families 







c_city: vancouver 

d_region: bc 

h_comments: as i was listening to this report, the first and continuing thought was of the other 
story about how Canada's senators are allowed to take advantage of a very generous housing 
allowance. Normally, I do not have problem with the Senate and I have viewed it as a democratic 
necessity, but lately it just seems that it is no more than a useless and expensive institution for 
useless and expensive people. it is about time that this country treated its armed forces as well as 
it does its senators. 

subject: lack of support for the military 



c_city: Victoria 

d_region: BC 



h_comments: I grew up in as an Army brat in the 60's & 70's. My father was a Sargent at the 
time. We would move every 3-4 yrs. We never had a house and always rented. 5 kids and 2 
adults in 2-3 bedroom PMQ's or small apartments. 



One of the effects of all these moves on myself has been my inability to make long term 
friendships. I learned early when I was young to not make friends in school or the 
neighbourhood because I knew we would be leaving in a couple years. To this day ( I am now 
55) I still have this problem with personal relationships. 



Thanks 

Richard 

subject: Military Moves 





c_city: Ottawa 

d_region: Ontario 

h_comments: I recently retired without regret after 32 years in the RCAF. The military life 
allowed me to see every part of Canada and a good part of the world and to really appreciate 
what we have at home. There were significant career costs for my wife and moving teenagers is 
hugely stressful; but, on balance, it was a positive experience for my family. 



Having lived in CF Married Quarters twice and bought and sold five homes, I fully sympathize 
with the plight of your guest. We lucked out with market timing and were only out of pocket 
about five thousand dollars on one house. I've known many members who were not nearly so 
lucky. 



The current home equity loss program is completely inadequate and an unfair burden on those 
who cannot chose the timing of a move. 



For those members who cannot afford a home at today's prices, Married Quarters are not much 
of an option either. Early on in my career, monthly rents were entirely reasonable, especially 
considering that most MQs were cramped, draughty, WWII era houses. Then, the CF decided to 
make rents 'market driven', significantly raising the rents in high cost areas - for the same 
cramped, draughty houses. Junior members who are now priced out of the housing market can 
also ill afford an MQ in many areas. If they do take the plunge and buy, they stand to loose their 
shirts if they have to sell at an inopportune time. Something has to change. 



Thanks for bringing this topic up. No need to respond. 

subject: Comment - Military Moves 





c_city: Winnipeg 

d_region: Manitoba 

h_comments: I was appalled at what strikes me as a gross injustice practiced by the Department 
of Defense in failing to provide adequate financial support to allow a normal family life for 
people who are charged with the protection of our country. I suspect that members of the military 
are well aware of the rationale for a large number of moves and go willingly where they are told 
to go. However, it would appear from your interview that the financial support has not been 
available. No wonder one hears about social problems within the ranks. What are the statistics 
for divorce, alcoholism, drug use and family violence issues? These types of issues are often a 
function of financial pressures within a family. Perhaps it is time for the Government of Canada 
through the Department of National Defense to take specific action. In your interview, you did 
indicate that someone is taking notice and trying to initiate changes. However, the wheels of 
government tend to move slowly. Perhaps in this case the wagon needs more of a push! Thank 
you for drawing public attention to this matter. Although I abhor violence I am not naive enough 
to believe we can do without a national Defense system. We need to protect our country and it 
takes committed people to ensure that protection. 

subject: Military Moves and the Costs Interview with Major Brower(sp?)


----------



## heavy reader (11 Feb 2015)

A few more comments from Canadians:

c_city: Norwood 

d_region: Ontario 

h_comments: I served with the CF from 1963 to 1996, retiring as a senior officer. Over my 
service we moved 11 times from the west coast to the east coast and back. Over those 33 years 
we saw average house prices go from $30,000 to $250,000 in places we were posted to. We also 
saw military housing built in the 1950's reduced, more and more members required to live on the 
economy, and little new military housing provided. Military bases tended to be in depressed 
areas of the country, but we still had members posted from rural bases to large cities with little 
consideration to how the families were accommodated. 



In 1963 few military spouses had employment and most families lived on the single military 
income. By 1996 it was impossible to live adequately on the economy in most parts of the 
country on a single military income. Officers were better able to adjust to the conditions, but the 
salaries of the lower ranks were woefully inadequate. As a consequence many families were 
forced to live separated or commute from great distances to afford to live reasonably well. 



The military move compensation was never willing to keep up with the changing circumstances. 
The move budget grew rapidly and in times of austerity it was a budget that was cut or reduced 
to provide funds for other programs. 





People were moved often to provide for career advancement. Generally commanding officers of 
units were changed every two years and base commanders every three to four years. Lower ranks 
were able to stay in one location longer, and officers who were not on a career track could also 
remain in one location in many circumstances. Some officers and many other ranks could serve 
in headquarters locations for many years if they were not on a career advancement track. 



I seemed that the career advancement requirements drove many of the moves, but the 
organization did not want to fund the full costs of this policy, particularly, the costs on the rest of 
the family. This reluctance to fund rapidly rising family moving costs was tolerable in an 
expanding economy and housing market, but in times of recession and falling house prices 
severe economic challenges resulted. Being a solid bureaucracy, the military re-locations 
managers had hard and fast rules and little wiggle room for extenuating circumstances. In the 
meantime, career advancement had to go on or else the military would end up stagnating its 
future leaders until the economy turned around. The end result was that the member and family 
paid. 



As a commanding officer family relocation issues were always top of mind. The unit 
effectiveness is degraded whenever members are worrying about their family and not 
concentrating on the mission. There was always a tension between the needs of many families 
and what the system was ready to provide - and the tension was relieved through the sacrifices 
many members and their families made for the mission. I will be honouring those sacrifices until 
the end of my days. 

subject: Military Moves 







c_city: Toronto 

d_region: Ontario 

e_country: Canada 

h_comments: Powerful interview this morning -- brought me to tears - listening to Major Marcus 
Brewer (sp) talk about the losses, costs and challenges he and his family has faced - and the 
source of comfort he tries to provide to other military in similar position. Thank you for sharing 
this story -- it must have been difficult for him to break the facade - and show such vulnerability. 
Vulnerability is key to our humanity - and connects us all -- no matter what our job, gender, 
social or financial status. The willingness to speak up, let down our guard and let others in to 
help - takes deep bravery. Hats off to him and CBC 's The Current. If there is contact info for 
him to extend help - please let us know. Thank you . 

subject: Military families/interview Feb 7th 







c_city: London 

d_region: On 

h_comments: I listened with interest to your segment on the military families moving. I grew up 
in the military as one of four children to a father who was a cook and after 25 years who rose to 
the rank of Sergent. The bases we went to were Greenwood NS, Bagotville PQ, Sennitere PQ, 
Val Dor PQ, NorthBay ON, Gander NFLD, Chatham NB, Chibougamau PQ, Ottawa ON, 
Clinton ON, and when my dad retired we moved to London ON. We moved approximately every 
2-3 years. A couple were only six months. 

The effects it had on our family - were great. I loved it! New friends, new experiences, new 
schools and new culturals were life lessons. Now retired, I have been looking back keenly on my 
life experiences and have started a journal . I have even entered, this year, an essay into CBC 
STORIES CONTEST. I wrote on my experiences in one of the bases. It is entitled "Life as an 
Air force Brat - Chapter 5" - CFS Chibougamau. It was a high point of my life. Being 16 years 
old, I was dropped into a totally different culture then what I experienced previously in CFB 
Chatham New Brunswick. 

subject: Canadian Military Families Moving 







c_city: East York 

d_region: ON 

h_comments: I was horrified to hear the stories of Military families suffering huge economic 
hardship because of relocations forced on them. Can this be? Here in Canada can we be 
penalizing those who have taken on one of our countries most dangerous jobs? Our government 
should immediately make legislative & regulatory changes so that no Military family is left 
shouldering the expense of relocations. Shame on the Canadian Forces for treating their members 
so unfairly. 

subject: Military families moves 



c_city: Niagara Falls 

d_region: Ontario 

h_comments: This is the first time I am writing in to provide comment on anything,,,, But it is so 
frustrating to hear the additional sacrifies our military families have to endure, especially in light 
of the recent controversy with the 'Senator's yearly $21,000.00" living expenses.... where is the 
fairness 

subject: Military Family 







a_firstName: Julia 

b_lastName: Armstrong 

c_city: Toronto 

d_region: ontario 

h_comments: It makes no sense for someone who knows that they will be moving again soon to 
purchase a home. It makes financial sense to rent under these circumstances. If one feels a need 
to have a real estate investment, it would be more appropriate to invest in real estate mutual 
funds instead. I am sorry for the situation the military folk have gotten themselves into 
financially but they have not been given good financial advice if they have been encouraged to 
buy a home in each new location they have been sent to. Home ownership is expensive and a 
luxury and is not a guarenteed investment over the short term. 

subject: Military families having to move 





c_city: Petawawa 

d_region: Ontario 

h_comments: I'm a military spouse. I've lived at cfb petawawa for 3 years. We have yet to be 
posted anywhere thus far. We have just recently purchased a home and what your guest was 
saying makes me very nervous. Recently there have been cut backs to the programs which would 
give the military members extra money while they are posted , this money is supposed to be used 
to help the families who are waiting at another base for their homes to sell. Because this money 
has been abused by spouses who are not willing to move and have no intention to sell their 
homes, everyone is missing out on this. I have a college education and I cannot find a job in my 
field. I am going back to school in the fall to get another diploma in hopes of getting a job that 
pays more than minimum wage. The military wastes so much money on silly things like sending 
the entire base across Ontario to show off to different towns while the military families are just 
scraping by. 

subject: Military moving 







c_city: Peterborough 

d_region: Ontario 

e_country: Canada 



h_comments: I just listened to the Military Officer who has lost over 2K from the multiple 
moves. This man is not a private or a young man who is starting his career without any 
responsibilities..This man has a wife and children.Is it not bad enough that we do not pay our 
Military staff a livable wage that they don't have to use food banks? It takes a certain type of 
person to join the military in the first place. Do we not have an obligation to ensure they are at 
the very least to keep them whole due to the moves that are imposed on them? 



Yes, moves are a part of Military life, but this should not crush them financially. It's just another 
example of how little we value our military forces I found the story sad and wondering what I 
could do to make a change. Good on him for coming out and speaking about it....I hope from this 
he is reimbursed for his shortfall....For shame..... 

subject: Military Families Losing Out.....Disgusting 





c_city: Peterborough 

d_region: On 



h_comments: C'mon Anna Maria, this situation is not 'shocking'. 

For years we've heard of shoddy treatment for family accomodations for our military. They are 
treated just like our natives!Its embarassing and Harper should be ashamed. 

subject: Military lives 







c_city: Cormack 

d_region: Newfoundland 

h_comments: Just listening to your conversation with Major Marcus of the Canadian Armed 
Forces regarging the financial burden placed on military families due to mandatory 
moves/posting. I feel extremely saddened that this is happening in a country such as Canada. 
Shame on the Government and shame on us, it's citizens, for expecting our men and women in 
uniform and their families to bare the financial loss associated with the moves. We expect so 
much from these brave people, and their sacrifice in the cause of freedom and justice has been 
well noted. Is this how we say "Thank You?" 

subject: Financial burden regarding Military moves


----------



## heavy reader (24 Feb 2015)

Meet the Ombudsman Shearwater MFRC 
​ 
What’s your Beef? 
Do you have concerns, questions or topics of discussion you would like to be addressed by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman? On March 4th Gary Walbourne, Ombudsman, will be holding a Town Hall Open Forum for military families and community members at the Shearwater MFRC from 6 to 8 p.m. This is a great opportunity to learn, share and make your concerns known and help make changes to your community. Child Care is available through pre-registration by March 2nd. For more information or to register please call 902-427-7788. 

I will be there.


----------



## heavy reader (27 Feb 2015)

For those concerned with the Home Equity Assistance (past or present), below is an updated visit schedule for the CAF Ombudsman. Updates may be found at: http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-visits/visits.page


Visits to Canadian Forces Installations

The Ombudsman’s office is committed to connecting directly with constituents where they live and work. In this vein, the Ombudsman and his staff travel regularly to Canadian Forces bases and wings, where they meet with senior leaders, non-commissioned members of all ranks and occupations, military family members, health care providers, chaplains, social workers and civilian employees. These sessions are meant to provide information on the office’s services, to discuss issues of importance and to receive and document complaints.  


Upcoming
CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater
Tuesday March 3, 2015
•Town Hall (Officers of CFB Halifax): 08:00-09:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Chiefs and Petty Officers of CFB Halifax): 10:00-11:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Master Seamen and Below of CFB Halifax): 13:00-14:30 at the Stadacona room S32

Wednesday March 4, 2015
•Town Hall (Civilians Employees of CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater): 08:00-09:30 at the Stadacona room S32

•Town Hall (Family members of CFB Halifax and CFB Shearwater): 18:00-20:00 at the Shearwater MFRC

Friday March 6, 2015
•Town Hall (Officers of CFB Shearwater): 08:30-10:00 at the Sea King Club

•Town Hall (Jr. Ranks of CFB Shearwater): 10:30-12:30 at the Sea King Club

•Town Hall (Senior NCM's of CFB Shearwater): 13:00-14:30 at 12 Wing HQ


----------



## McG (14 Mar 2015)

With the government taking steps to be seen doing something for veterans, maybe next they will try to sort out this problem.  For now, it looks like they would rather spend more money saying no than it would cost to look after families.


> Ottawa spends almost $65,000 on fight over home assistance for military members
> Alison Auld
> CTV News
> 13 Mar 2015
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-spends-almost-65-000-on-fight-over-home-assistance-for-military-members-1.2278350


----------



## ProPatria05 (17 Mar 2015)

So, here's my question. If you want to be fully compensated when you lose money on the sale of residence when posted, are you prepared to turn over the profits when you make money on sale of residence when posted? My point is that the majority of people make money when they sell their home on posting, yet nobody is lining up to turn those profits back over to Treasury Board.

If we truly want to be equitable, we'd keep a running total of profits and losses on postings over a member's career, and create some mechanism whereby a member is only reimbursed for any NET loss on home sale over the course of their career.


----------



## Tibbson (17 Mar 2015)

Others can speak with more passion on this issue then I can but it really has nothing at all to do with profits.  It has to do with not losing your shirt owing to a career in the military.  I purchased my home for $255,000 and after three years at my last posting I was told I was moving again.  Owing to market conditions it took 9 months to sell my house which meant I was on IR, away from my family for 6 months.  When the house finally sold it was for $242,500 which meant I lost $12,500.  Thats not $12,500 of potential profit, thats a net loss because my employer chose to move me.  I've known people who have had three moves in three years, a situation that could destroy a person financially unless there were some protections in place.  If after that same three years my home had appreciated in value or market conditions had resulted in a profit upon sale then that is no different than the navy types who had already spent 20+ years posted there and who bought their houses back then for $70k or so and now found the home worth $250k.  

IF, and thats a big if, the average person breaks even or makes money on the sale of their home when they are posted then good for them however if the situation results in a loss because the employer moves them than they deserve to be compensated.  Since you are unable to look into a crystal ball and determine just how long or short someone's career may be your career average theory just goes out the window.


----------



## Alberta Bound (17 Mar 2015)

PP05

Sorry I have to disagree with your rationale. I have found that most govt employees (CF, RCMP, PS) that I have talked to who have had to make physical moves in their career usually "make" money on their house as the whole market goes up. In effect not really making money at all as the next house they buy has also gone up. Those that lose money usually lose due to a specific market losing value and they still end up paying an increased pricing at the next posting. Yes there are exceptions. 

But career people who do 20 plus and numerous moves already sacrifice a lot financially, emotionally and family wise. Why should a high value area like this be a constant concern every time posting season comes around. 

Most importantly. The policy was made considering that unavoidable losses should be covered. It is the misapplication of the policy that is the issue. 

20 years, 7 moves, 3 house sales, 1 loss (20,000) mostly covered, 2 times in Crown housing, still got a mortgage that hopefully is gone by 25 years. Lucky never to have taken a big loss.  Why should I worry that being transferred once at the wrong time could kill me financially. 

Sorry, your just wrong.


----------



## ProPatria05 (18 Mar 2015)

So I'm "just wrong"....glad to see that there are only absolutes in the world, and that certain people's opinions are apparently undebatable. All I'm trying to do is take some of the emotion out of this and be somewhat logical. And I'm not an unaffected bystander - posted this summer for my 5th move, 4th home sale.

That said, I'm seeing two themes throughout this discussion:

1) If I make money on a home sale because my employer chose to move me then fair is fair, good for me, I keep all the money, and the government has no entitlement to it (nor should they, IMO). But If I lose money for the exact same reason, then woe is me, this is unfair, I keep none of the burden of loss, and the government owes me.

2) There is hardship associated with moving that I should be compensated for.

Ref #1, this makes no sense. However, I will agree that the 'depressed market' rules are probably not applied in many cases where they should be, and if this is the case then there is merit in compensating for the portion of the loss if the market you are selling in is way down when all other markets, including the one you're posted to, are steady or up.

What I'm suggesting is that aside from the above situation (which could be excluded from the equation), a member should have a kind of 'running total' with IRP or TB of home profits and losses. If you're cumulatively ahead, say, $20000 on 3 home sales and your next sale results in a loss of $5000, then your 'account' simply goes down by $5K to $15000, and you don't get any actual reimbursement. A safety catch would be that no member could ever go into the negative, ie. if he/she loses money on their first sale, then they get reimbursed. Why should someone benefit from the general ups of the market, but then bear no risk of the general downs? (again, as long as the 'catastrophic' scenario is properly recognized and dealt with). It's having your cake and eating it, too.

And ref #2, we are already compensated for the 'hardship' of posting via the posting allowance. An extra month's pay is huge. And if you're smart and roll it into an RRSP, or use it to buy down your mortgage interest rate, you get the full value by fending off the tax man.

Would enjoy debating this on its merits/shortfalls (maybe I'm out to lunch, or crazy), but I'm not going to enter into any emotional arguments about it.


----------



## kratz (18 Mar 2015)

I'm glad you are choosing to use your "windfall" posting allowance for an investment or mortgage opportunity.
This allowance is not intended for the use you chose to use it for. The posting allowance is to cover expenses 
experienced not covered by standard IRP policy.  

Your post wants to remove emotion and talk hardship?

Yes, there are expenses incurred each time a move happens. 
Yes, there is wear and tear on F&E each time a move happens.
Yes, there are suprise costs each time a move happens.
Yes, we can all be so lucky to choose to invest our move in an RRSP

Move 7 times over 10 years and then we can talk.


----------



## ProPatria05 (18 Mar 2015)

I think 5 times in 11 years is close enough, so I'll bite.

I don't believe I ever used the term 'windfall', which would imply I might have suggested we haven't earned it - which we have.

As for the posting allowance not being 'intended' for Mortgage Interest buy-down - from the current IRP Directive:

8.3.15 Mortgage interest buy-down
Personalized benefit (aka Posting Allowance)
Interest expenses to buy down a mortgage and associated legal fees shall be reimbursed. Buy-down amount shall not be below the prescribed rate as determined by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)

No specific reference to RRSP rollover in the directive, however you can do it. Ack that you sometimes can't use some or all of it for this. My last move was cross-country, and I used up all my custom funding moving a boat and camper, so had to dip into personal to cover the rest. This time, we will likely use most or all of it to buy some new furniture, mostly because we just want some new stuff. But I have the choice - the choice to have bought a boat and camper that cost a ton to move (and thus ate into my posting allowance), a choice to use it replace furniture that is still useable, etc, etc. Luck has nothing to do with it.

I have no doubt that there are specific examples of horror stories where the only luck is bad luck (sounds like maybe you have one or two of those), but I think by and large (at least anecdotally from people I know), the majority of moves go fairly smoothly (fingers crossed for this year).


----------



## heavy reader (20 Mar 2015)

THe intent of the HEA is just that- for assistance. Assistance when the arse falls out of the market. It is also provided due to the nuances of serving (Military, RCMP). Further, it is consistant with other relocation benefits for major corporations across Canada (none of which would have their employees contribute any "gains" should they occur.

Simply put, it is insurance for those of us who get posted often. Here is the origional intent from the 1999 SCONDVA Report (available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031525&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&File=6)

"ENCOURAGE HOME OWNERSHIP 

Military personnel who own their homes instead of renting accommodations on or off military bases also face many problems. Like other Canadian homeowners, they have to deal with the needs of growing families, the long-term financial implications of ownership, and the complexities of the real estate market. However, *unlike most Canadians, they also have to move more frequently, have to sell and buy homes more often, and, not by choice, have to contend with significant differences in housing prices from one region to another. If real estate values in their region are on a downward trend when a posting comes, they may have to sell their homes at a loss. If they move to an area where homes are much more expensive, they may only be able to afford less expensive and smaller homes than the one sold at the previous location. Some may even abandon their dream of homeownership because they lost too much money on the sale of their home at the old location. * 

Encouraging homeownership can benefit not only military personnel, but the Department as well. If more people buy homes, the Department will have to build and maintain fewer PMQs and help a smaller number of renters deal with regional differences in housing costs. The quality of life of individuals is improved because homeownership remains a viable option to them despite their frequent moves and because with good financial planning, they will own a home when they retire from the military. Some measures are already in place to help homeowners and some improvements can help make them more effective. 

The Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP) was established to help homeowners who have to leave an area when the real estate market is depressed. Homeowners can be reimbursed up to 90% for any difference between the price at which they sell their homes and the adjusted purchase price which includes the value of certain improvements made to the home as well as the original purchase price. To be eligible, homeowners have to demonstrate that the home prices in the area have declined by 10% or more between the time of purchase and the time of sale. This is not always easy to do because of conflicting information and other factors. Delays in determining eligibility for assistance has also been a problem and revised application procedures were introduced in 1996 to deal with this. 

However, given the number of complaints we heard, the way eligibility is determined still creates problems. Some people suffered significant financial losses when they sold their homes in a depressed real estate market, but could not get assistance because the price of houses in their area dropped by only 8 or 9% or because of the way the adjusted purchase price was determined. Losing assistance because of one or two percentages is of course disappointing, but it is even more difficult to accept if people do not have confidence that their eligibility is determined fairly. Some questions were raised about the way appraisals are carried out to determine the adjusted purchase price. Two appraisals of a home are usually carried out, but the Department sometimes orders a third appraisal when there is a significant difference in the first two. While the way appraisals are carried out should be reviewed, other factors in determining eligibility also need attention. It should be sufficient to demonstrate that the local real estate market is depressed rather than trying to determine as well if the price of homes has dropped by 10% or not. In short, procedures should be simplified and the 10% rule should be abandoned. We therefore recommend:

36. That the Home Equity Assistance Program be revised, notably by eliminating the 10% rule, to ensure that homeowners have access to fair and equitable assistance when, because of a new posting, they have to sell their home while the local real estate market is depressed. 

Some military personnel would not have to make use of the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan or the Home Equity Assistance Programme if they did not have to sell their homes every time they got a new posting. They might want to keep a home in one location while posted elsewhere because it is a good investment or because they wish to return there in a few years, for example, upon retirement. If the Housing Agency opts for the construction or leasing of PMQs off bases in some areas, it could assist these individuals by leasing or administering their homes and renting them as PMQs. The Housing Agency would gain extra units for its pool of PMQs and offer a choice of locales without having to build new homes. Meanwhile, owners would be able to keep a favourite home or avoid the stress of trying to sell a home on short notice or in unfavourable conditions when posted elsewhere. Of course, the Housing Agency would be free to refuse to lease a home because of its condition, location or other reasons and the number of homes individuals could lease to the Agency would be limited. However, making such a leasing arrangement possible would give homeowners another option while helping both the Housing Agency and military personnel trying to find suitable rental accommodation close to their base. Since both PMQs residents and homeowners can be helped by such an initiative"

I do believe there are opportunities to improve the system, such as using modern market analysis tools available from CMHC to calculate the %loss in a community. Since "community" has now been defined by DND and the Federal Courts to mean 3 city blocks, or a Town (such as Bon Accord, AB), then a good sample could include the 20 closest homes (within a certain radius), of the same house type.


----------



## TCM621 (20 Mar 2015)

Whether or not people make money on a house sale is irrelevant to the conversation. The question is whether or not a Cf member should have to eat a significant financial loss for the needs of the service. In Marcus' case that is almost a years salary. If you tell people that we are posting you and it's going to cost you 10s of thousands of dollars, and by the way it's your loss, you will have a lot of people quit. 

We put up with a lot of BS due to our occupation and most people take it as the cost of doing business. Our spouses routinely give up well paying or otherwise rewarding careers to follow us and spend countless days alone while we do our job. We all signed on for this and most of us accept it. 

When we put a dollar figure to it, it is harder to swallow. I can only imagine the conversation I would have with my wife where I said "this next posting is going to cost me 75 grand and the military expects us to pay it all. And no I don't get a choice."


----------



## Alberta Bound (21 Mar 2015)

PP05

Regarding the two themes you feel that you are seeing:

1) I don't think you understood my point. Most members I know don't truly make money. The total market goes up and the difference in original purchase and proceeding sale / next purchase is simply eaten up by the higher price. Joe citizen swims through life with this and when markets are good he can decide about selling generally when he wants to and can benefit. When the market is bad then JC can  not sell if he doesn't wish. Most members move when told and this option is not open to them. 

Now Maybe the odd member truly wins and sells high somewhere after buying low and again buys low. Good for them. But that is the exception

Your concept to set up a system to decide who has made money on a house and monitor these credit debit accounts throughout their service? What would that cost to administer? Funding better spent on beaurocracy than the members? I am not even going to comment...........

So now 2). The posting allowance isn't for the hardship of a transfer. It is there to cover certain expenses that aren't funded under other provisions of the relocation directive. I also wouldn't say it is huge. Depends on what expenses you need to use it for. Spouse, kids, HHT, pets, etc. In some cases it doesn't last long. 
Your correct. If you are in a good financial position it is a nice way to pay down the interest rate. If you can afford to do that. 
As far as using it for an RRSP buy down, well that is a different subject and ultimately in that case you aren't saving the taxes, you are just deferring them.

So you would like to discuss a highly emotional subject ( a member and their families financial well being)   Without Emotions? You sound like some people I have met from PWGSC and TBS when they discuss members pay and benefits. Dispassionate, cold, uncaring.  

I live in a world of mostly grey each and every day. But yes in some cases there are absolutes. And sometimes people just have to say so. This back and forth we are having is a debate. But I will still stick by my assertion. On this subject. Yes you are wrong. 

No hard feelings just my unequivocal belief. Members should be entitled to the benefits that TBS has approved in order to be financially stable.


----------



## ProPatria05 (23 Mar 2015)

AB

I actually agree with much of what you're saying. Also get the sell high/buy high situation where you're not really 'making' any money.

As for costs of managing a running balance of 'profits and losses', Brookfield already tracks buying and selling prices of homes. No additional work, really, and it's part of the IRP contract so no additional cost to DND. As for the merit of it, agree to disagree. All good. I don't see it ever happening, anyways - just spitballing.

Ack on "deferral" vice avoidance of taxes. But you still get to roll the full amount (if you choose) into an RRSP and earn investment income on all of it, including the tax deferred portion. Plus, if you transfer it to a spousal RRSP, it gets taxed on the spouse's return when withdrawn in the future, which is advantageous if he/she is in a lower tax bracket than the mbr.

As for cold and uncaring, as especially dispassionate, you got me all wrong, dude. I've fought tooth and nail for my troops in too many cases to remember, and like to think that I had some part in saving a few careers (whole other topic), amongst other things. On the other side of the coin, I've fought tooth and nail to hold some to account and/or get rid of them, because they were a waste of oxygen and were negatively impacting the ones I cared about.  Just always thinking about what the 'right' thing to do would be, which is not always the easiest or the most popular. And I fully agree that nobody should be denied benefits they are entitled to, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about them.

No hard feelings on this end, either.


----------



## heavy reader (24 Mar 2015)

The contact information for the Home Equity Assistance class action is: hea@mcinnescooper.com


----------



## Alberta Bound (24 Mar 2015)

PP05

Excellent, great to hear. 

AB


----------



## Pusser (30 Mar 2015)

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm glad you are choosing to use your "windfall" posting allowance for an investment or mortgage opportunity.
> This allowance is not intended for the use you chose to use it for. *The posting allowance is to cover expenses experienced not covered by standard IRP policy.  *



Not correct.  You can use it for that purpose, should you so chose, but that was never the intent.  Posting Allowance pre-dates the IRP by several years and its stated purpose upon inception was to compensate members for the turmoil associated with a move.  The old CFAO on the subject actually said that.  What you actually do with your Posting Allowance is entirely up to you.  It has not other stated purpose.  The Movement Grant, however, was originally intended to pay for the little things that it wasn't worth accounting for in the pre-IRP days.  With IRP, they lumped them together into the Personalized Envelope for administration, but the intent remains the same.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Mar 2015)

Of course, the question remains why a month's pay is needed.  Wouldn't a flat rate make more sense?


----------



## heavy reader (8 May 2015)

Brauer angry!


----------



## McG (9 May 2015)

It looks like the government is on the offensive to ensure military families eat the costs of home losses.



> *Feds try to quash class action lawsuit by veterans who lost money when they moved*
> Alison Auld, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 07 May 2015
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-try-to-quash-class-action-lawsuit-by-veterans-who-lost-money-when-they-moved-1.2363838

... and in a separate, related note:


> *Military member loses bid to recover losses linked to sale of home*
> Alison Auld, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 08 May 2015
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-member-loses-bid-to-recover-losses-linked-to-sale-of-home-1.2365808


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 May 2015)

Great way to keep your work force happy.


----------



## heavy reader (12 May 2015)

The report used by TBS contains significant errors. I have brought them up to the CoC, so that DCBA can work with TBS to resolve them. However, the clock is ticking. Decision was made on 7 May, which gives me 30 days to get a positive reponse from TBS, or carry on with an action in Federal Court.

I really feel for the guys at TBS, if they had done good staff work, this would have never happened.

Onward...


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 May 2015)

Most of these problems can be solved by just not buying a house.

If your concerns are regard to the large losses that occur with the ebb and flow of the real estate market then the simple solution is to not put so much of your networth into one investment category (ie Real Estate) and rent instead. 

I'm flabbergasted at how the prevailing thought is to buy a house at all costs, even when obviously better solutions are out there. Places like Victoria where it's $450,000 minimum to buy a down in the dumps townhouse that you can rent for $1,400. Or $200,000 to buy a 3 bedroom house when you can get a 3 bedroom PMQ for $500. 

Lets be real, yes the 2000s were amazing for home prices (I too made more equity gains than my salary some years), but we're being willfully blind if we think the gravy train is going to continue forever. People need to stop with the home buying assumption and actually look at the dollars and sense of it all. The money saved by renting is often far better to be invested in a diversified TFSA/RRSP than to dump it into a house. Couple that with the amount you save from property tax, repairs and maintenance, insurances and even moving costs (since DND is not covering mortgage breakage fees. When you sell your $450k dumpy townhouse in Victoria and move to Gagetown you are going to break that mortgage or end up buying a mansion to avoid breakage fees).

While it's true the military moves us and should shoulder the burden, it's also rings true that there is a certain truth to the idea that we can't just continually pocket the gains of our good real estate decisions and expect DND to pick up the tab on our bad choices.

/side rant

 I honestly thing the CF would solve a lot of it's own personnel problems if it incorporated some personal financial management courses in the recruit training. HighSchools aren't doing it, so they show up at our door with no idea how to handle money and then we push what they think is a big wad of cash at them. It's a recipe for disaster. I think I've seen more financial problems from people a year off tour then someone who never went. A lot of it stems from soldiers not getting any more info on personal finance than what they hear from peers in just as dire straights as they are.

/end rant


----------



## Sf2 (16 May 2015)

500 bucks for a 3 bedroom? Do tell....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 May 2015)

IF you can get a Q as well


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 May 2015)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 500 bucks for a 3 bedroom? Do tell....



Fact.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 May 2015)

Where


----------



## Sf2 (16 May 2015)

Convincing post is convincing.


----------



## blacktriangle (16 May 2015)

I will admit that buying can be risky in the military (especially for single folks, or those on a single income) - but kiss a big chunk of your pension bye-bye if you choose to rent indefinitely.


----------



## Tibbson (16 May 2015)

My family and I have given up more then enough over the length of my career.  I don't think we should be expected to give up home ownership as well.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 May 2015)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 500 bucks for a 3 bedroom? Do tell....



A quick google shows that my old 3-Bedroom Q in Gagetown is still right around $500. It was a good deal then, it's a good deal now.

http://www.cfha-alfc.forces.gc.ca/hl-el/gagetowngi-gagetownig-eng.aspx

Three (3) Bedrooms
Shelter Charge 	Sq. Ft. 	No. of Units 	Type 	No. of Storeys 	No. of Bathrms 	Click Style for Details and Photos
$467 - $538 	948 - 1074 	387 	                Row 	2 	                1 	                M/131


----------



## Gunner98 (16 May 2015)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I honestly thing the CF would solve a lot of it's own personnel problems if it incorporated some personal financial management courses in the recruit training. HighSchools aren't doing it, so they show up at our door with no idea how to handle money and then we push what they think is a big wad of cash at them. It's a recipe for disaster. I think I've seen more financial problems from people a year off tour then someone who never went. A lot of it stems from soldiers not getting any more info on personal finance than what they hear from peers in just as dire straights as they are.
> 
> /end rant



In the 1990s until 1994 anyways Recruit Training included an afternoon session on financial management and budgeting.  The military used to train officers and Warrant Officers as Unit Financial Counsellors.  

The real issue is that the soldiers of today, especially those who go on tour have more money than the soldier of the 1990s.  SSIP is one option as they have financial advisors.  The CAF formed a partnership with the Bank of Montreal to provide another option http://www.bmo.com/cdcb/ - so getting help is as easy as clicking on a link on a website.


----------



## blacktriangle (16 May 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> A quick google shows that my old 3-Bedroom Q in Gagetown is still right around $500. It was a good deal then, it's a good deal now.
> 
> http://www.cfha-alfc.forces.gc.ca/hl-el/gagetowngi-gagetownig-eng.aspx
> 
> ...



Sadly Gagetown does not reflect the reality for every base. That area has beautiful homes on multi-acre lots selling for less than a new condo in the NCR.


----------



## kratz (17 May 2015)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Fact.



PAY my $938 month RSU rate in Borden....fact  :evil:BTW...that was in 2011.

Do NOT...assert fact, unless you are experienced, or can back up your "facts"

Your experience will not speak for the entire CAF


----------



## TCM621 (17 May 2015)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Fact.



10 years ago, I rented a 3 bedroom hald duplex (the floor plan with the tiny kitchen) for 860, in victoria. I currently pay 912 for a 3 bedroom Q in Comox. There is no way you can rent a 3 bedroom in Victoria for 500. 500 might, might, get you a bacherlor apartment in Victoria. Average rent for a 3 bedroom in Victoria is 1317 as of 2014.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/Profile/DetailsPrimaryRentalMarket?geographyId=2440&t=3


----------



## Eland2 (17 May 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I will admit that buying can be risky in the military (especially for single folks, or those on a single income) - but kiss a big chunk of your pension bye-bye if you choose to rent indefinitely.



One of my uncles did 23 years in the CF. He bought and sold several houses while he served and did OK. After doing his recruit training his first posting was to Sarcee Barracks in Calgary, then to the supply depot at Longue Pointe Barracks in Montreal. After that, all of his postings (with the exception of a tour of duty in Cyprus) were all located in southern Ontario. He seemed to have a fairly regular habit of bouncing back and forth between CFB London and CFB Borden. When he was posted to Borden to be an instructor at CFSAL in 1980, he managed the issue of what to do with his house in London by simply renting it out. When his posting was over (and this was the last one before he retired), he simply terminated the lease and moved back into his house. 

Suffice it to say, he was extremely lucky in being able to arrange things this way. Not having to move all over Canada or get posted to Germany was, I think, the secret to his success.


----------



## Brasidas (17 May 2015)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 500 bucks for a 3 bedroom? Do tell....





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> IF you can get a Q as well



Exactly.

How much vacancy would there have been in, say, Cold Lake in 2007, for a family of 5?

I spent months as a dependent in a family waiting for a Q in the early 90s. Sometimes its just not possible. And outside of a major city, how much slack is there in a small centre with a booming economy? Dad might be able to find some place to put his head down, but keeping the family together and comfortable isn't about investing wisely or poorly. Sometimes buying is the only way to keep your family together.


----------



## TCM621 (18 May 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> How much vacancy would there have been in, say, Cold Lake in 2007, for a family of 5?
> 
> I spent months as a dependent in a family waiting for a Q in the early 90s. Sometimes its just not possible. And outside of a major city, how much slack is there in a small centre with a booming economy? Dad might be able to find some place to put his head down, but keeping the family together and comfortable isn't about investing wisely or poorly. Sometimes buying is the only way to keep your family together.


Not mention with the new SE rules,  going on IR is a pretty big hit financially.  Maj.  Brueur bought a house, in part,  because there were no Qs available and he was told he had a fairly long term posting.  The way I see it, the military has to provide compensation for financial loss or take into account house prices when considering postings. As the latter would be almost impossible to manage,  the former makes more sense. Yes it costs money but it provides the military flexibility  to put the right people in the right job at the right time.


----------



## heavy reader (27 May 2015)

I have engaged the BIG MAN to resolve this.  Details to follow!


----------



## heavy reader (8 Jun 2015)

Once again, after winning in Federal Court, our battle has been extended by Treasury Board Secretariat. We find ourselves having to take TBS back into Federal Court to finalize our claim for Home Equity Assistance. Our family has carried this load for 5 years now, won our grievances and won in federal court, but TBS continues to SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS denying our entitlements.

The only way we can get accountability is by voting, and taking them to court.  https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/2015-06-03-brauer-notice-of-application.pdf


We are once again asking for financial support to assist with this legal battle, so that the TBS will be held accountable to follow their own policies, instead of getting away with the use of Blanket Denials for hundreds of Canadian Military families. Details available at www.healoss.wordpress.com

Donations may be made at: http://www.gofundme.com/home-equity-assistance

Thank you so much for your continued support in this quest for Government Accountability.

Thanks for the support over the last 5 years, it does mean a great deal to us and the other affected families.


----------



## heavy reader (13 Oct 2015)

Class action-Home Equity Assistance

File: #T-1924-14

NEIL DODSWORTH v. THE QUEEN
 (M-English)
 Tort (v. Queen)

14 Oct 2015 (TOMORROW) 09:30, duration 2d
at the Halifax Law Courts
The Law Courts:
1815 Upper Water St. 
Halifax, NS
B3J 1S7

Open to the Public


http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/East_List

Details at:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1924-14
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/soldier-neil-dodsworth-launches-class-action-over-home-sale-losses-1.2781617


----------



## heavy reader (4 Nov 2015)

URGENT REQUEST

I am in need of the 2008 CFIRP Policy (electronic or hard copy) asap.  Anyone who has a copy, I will pay for shipping (expidited). An e-copy can be sent to i_win@live.ca

Hardcopy may be sent to
Marcus Brauer
25 Wheatstone Heights
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 4E1

All of the pre-2009 policies, and policy clarification messages have been scrubbed and can no longer be found.

Thanks so much.


----------



## CountDC (4 Nov 2015)

Wish I could say I am fully surprised but, well I'm not. In fact to be really honest only surprising part is that they didn't just do a review as ordered by the court and then issue the same basic decision - denied.  The win in court didn't order them to pay the claim, only that the court felt some of the thought process was incorrect and TB was to review the claim.


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Nov 2015)

heavy,

I just sent you the 2009 IRP document, I will keep searching my personal archives for an earlier version.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Nov 2015)

Thanks to everyone who helped. We have the documentation and proof again that we need to depend on each other to succeed.

On a related note - the HEA file will (again) be in Federal Court of Canada. Hope to see some of my old Ottawa crew in attendance! It is open to the public.


Tues, 19th Jan, 2016
0930-1230 hrs
90 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Nov 2015)

Any chance the new Govt can make a difference.


----------



## heavy reader (6 Nov 2015)

I hope so. I read with interest the liberal policy and they do claim that they will, but there needs to be support throughout. Hopefully, with Tony Clement out of the way, common sense will begin to trickle back in to the Treasury Board.


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Any chance the new Govt can will make a difference.


Of course they can, and the last government could have too.
That is not the real question.


----------



## 762gunner (20 Dec 2015)

After 29 years in uniform I was forced to retire from the Reg F before I was ready.  I will lose $30,000-$40,000 on the sale of my condo, and I was given the choice by my career manager: get posted out or get out.  Brookfield told me tough titties: I chose this job and all its downfalls.  Edmonton is not in a depressed market compared to the 2008 housing boom, so tough luck.

When we went to a for-profit company to manage moves, that was a huge mistake.  BOHICA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Dec 2015)

Brookfield does have it problems, but you do realize two things, right (?):

1. The military (not Brookfield) decides when and if to post you.

2. Brookfield merely (and rigidly) enforces the move policy as set by both Treasury Board and amplified by DND.

In other words, make sure you are aiming at the right target when you shoot.


----------



## Pusser (20 Dec 2015)

To add to what SeaKing Tacco said, Brookfield is paid a flat fee per file.  It is the same fee whether it's a 19 year old single private with nothing but a kit bag, or a 45 year old colonel with a wife, six kids, two vehicles, a trailer, three dogs, a cat and 20K lbs of furniture.  They get no bonuses, incentives or any other kind of extra payment for "saving" the crown money by stiffing members.  So, you may not like the way the policy is administered, but it is in accordance with Treasury Board (i.e. government) direction.  Furthermore, to Brookfield's credit, it is administered consistently, which was not always the case in the "good old days."


----------



## TCM621 (20 Dec 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To add to what SeaKing Tacco said, Brookfield is paid a flat fee per file.  It is the same fee whether it's a 19 year old single private with nothing but a kit bag, or a 45 year old colonel with a wife, six kids, two vehicles, a trailer, three dogs, a cat and 20K lbs of furniture.  They get no bonuses, incentives or any other kind of extra payment for "saving" the crown money by stiffing members.  So, you may not like the way the policy is administered, but it is in accordance with Treasury Board (i.e. government) direction.  Furthermore, to Brookfield's credit, it is administered consistently, which was not always the case in the "good old days."


Apparently the career manager works the same way.  He gets X number of moves per year and it doesn't matter if it is a single guy from Greenwood to Halifax or a married family of 7 from Gander to Esquimalt. Each one costs him one move and damn the monetary cost. One more reason we can't have nice things lol.


----------



## armyvern (22 Dec 2015)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Apparently the career manager works the same way.  He gets X number of moves per year and it doesn't matter if it is a single guy from Greenwood to Halifax or a married family of 7 from Gander to Esquimalt. Each one costs him one move and damn the monetary cost. One more reason we can't have nice things lol.



After 28 years, and 11 pack-up-and-move moves  ... I don't have too much sympathy when careers has to use that line on someone to get them to do what they knowingly signed up for (exceptional circumstances qualify for IR, sooooooo).


----------



## CountDC (5 Jan 2016)

Personnally i hate the new restrictions on moves created because so many people complained about having to move.  I joined expecting to get moved every 3 or 4 years and now have to fight for one of the few moves the CM has available.  Now my problem is do I take one of the few available to somewhere I don't want or do I release.  Was so much nicer when there was a crap load of positions offered all over the country because there were so many moves.


----------



## donaldk (5 Jan 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Personnally i hate the new restrictions on moves created because so many people complained about having to move.  I joined expecting to get moved every 3 or 4 years and now have to fight for one of the few moves the CM has available.  Now my problem is do I take one of the few available to somewhere I don't want or do I release.  Was so much nicer when there was a crap load of positions offered all over the country because there were so many moves.



I am hoping to get a move soon back to Ontario myself before my current house's warranty runs out; but like most CMs the move allocation for the trade was reduced significantly.  Time will tell, got a CM interview in a couple weeks (at least this year I can use my office's VTC terminal... no mule run slipping downhill on the shitty sidewalks to SCOTIAN).  I miss the days of one-on-one meetings in person with the CM, no technology BS to deal with.

P.S. Rant: DIN search engine is getting better but it still took an hour to find the VTC -> DVCS calling instructions and then make a quick test call.  Whoever did vc.mil.ca needs a smack upside the head; VTC tech support couldn't be bothered to answer the phone either today.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jan 2016)

donaldk said:
			
		

> VTC tech support couldn't be bothered to answer the phone either today.



Likely minimum manning due to Christmas leave until tomorrow.


----------



## CountDC (8 Jan 2016)

at least you can still talk to your CM.  Not only do we not get the one on one visits we don't even get to talk to them anymore. I haven't talked to CM in 6 years. We have to go through the chain up to them.

Still haven't improved the area around the stone frigate  ;D


----------



## heavy reader (13 Jan 2016)

Its been a while so here's an update. Fed Court in 6 Days. Treasury Court Sectariat has aldrady been caught cheating us by a pplying a "b landket denial" to all pers who lost more than $15,000.  A class action has been launched, their POC is the legal rep at McInnis Cooper in Halifax.; http://canliiconnects.org/en/users/952


----------



## heavy reader (17 Jan 2016)

2 Days until Federal Court. A show of support from folks in Ottawa on 19 January, 0930 would be appreciated.

Details for the hearing in Downtown Ottawa may be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/207866362878020/ The hearing is open to the public.

Thanks for all of the support over the past 5 1/2 years on this issue.

Marcus Brauer


----------



## Zoomie (17 Jan 2016)

Slightly off-topic (maybe).  While not related to 100% HEAP - I feel for you guys.  I was in a high level briefing before Christmas where a one-star was discussing how the maximum coverage for the lesser HEAP ($15k) was based on an arbitrary number that was no longer relevant.  The working group was actively working to increase that number to more adequately reflect losses.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2016)

Considering homes in most areas where CAF members are posted easily approach $300k, 10% of that, or $30k would more accurately reflect the market now, I think.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2016)

Major Brauer has lost in court.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the cpoyright act.



> Canadian Forces Maj. Marcus Brauer loses legal battle over home sale loss
> 
> Federal Court judge sides with federal government, but questions compensation policy
> 
> ...


----------



## CountDC (11 Feb 2016)

damn


----------



## TCM621 (11 Feb 2016)

Sorry Marcus. You tried. I hope your family is doing OK in all this.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Feb 2016)

If the courts do not think they are the appropriate place for resolution,  then we need to engage our MPs . As most of our MPs have a significant military presence in their ridings,  it is in their interest to look into this.  Here is a copy of the email I wrote my MP,  feel free to use it as a template. 


Major Marcus Brauer was denied home equity assistance (to which is entitled) when he was forced to sell his house in Bon Accord Alberta at a significant loss due to a posting. He did his duty and followed up through the military chain of command which agreed that he should have received it but unfortunately didn't have the authority to give it to him.  The authority lay with treasury board.

Maj Brauer took the Treasury Board to federal court and won. The judge instructed to the board to re-examine his case. Treasury Board proceeded to return the same answer that lead to losing in court the first time.  Upon taking Treasury Board to court a second time,  the judge deemed an injustice had been done but it was a problem better addressed politically rather than judicially.

Maj Brauer,  did his best to fight but Treasury Board was able to use our tax dollars to win the war of attrition. He is now continuing the fight through his local MP in Halifax. As the MP for a riding with a significant military presence,  this should be of great concern to you.  His situation is not unique. I lost close to 100 thousand dollars of equity in my house when I was posted in 2012,  although I was lucky because it was equity and I did not end up owing.

I have linked his go fund me page so you can get some background on the situation. I hope you will stand with our service members in this fight.

https://de.gofund.me/Home-Equity-Assistance&rcid=7a644ec6dcc511e59c63bc764e0525d6


You can find your MP here
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/members


----------



## heavy reader (1 Mar 2016)

Change is in the wind my friends. Have a look at the attachment and watch the news.

Looks like we may have had an impact after all.

Happy APS everyone!


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2016)

I certainly hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.  I just received a negative response to a reasonable request on something that DCBA direction does not say.

Unfortunately, DCBA spends a good deal of time justifying bad decisions and has created a culture of NO!  Nowadays, it seems that a reasonable and logical interpretation of policy is seldom applied.  Only the letter of the law, or rather only what someone would like or thinks the letter of the law should be, is applied.  If there is any phrase or even word in a policy statement that can be used to justify a negative response, it will be used, irrespective if that particular part of the policy is actually applicable to the case at hand.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves today.  It is no small wonder that the backlog of adjudications and grievances at DGCB is so long.  If they actually applied policy intelligently and looked at CAF members, not as adversaries, but as people to be supported, they might find their jobs a lot easier.


----------



## heavy reader (31 Mar 2016)

Posted this year?

The Home Equity Assistance has still not been ammended, even though proven to be ineffective.  Check out the Ombusdman's recommendations at: https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hea-study.pdf


----------



## bluecollared (3 May 2016)

I couldn't find much relating to this specific situation, so I figured I'd give a shot and see if anyone here can shed an light on this. Regarding the IRP Directive section 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance, I think there's a lot of people posted out of Gagetown this year who are in a tough spot for selling their homes and being told different things about HEA.

It's a buyer's market here right now, most people are having to sell their homes for quite a bit less than what they paid and are relying on HEA to top them up. Most of the appraisals seem to be coming in low as well, because there are so many houses on the market. So the way I understood HEA (and confirmed by Brookfield) as long as a house is sold within 95% of its appraised value you will be reimbursed up to what you paid (80% of the loss to a max of $15000 from Core, the remaining coming from Custom and Personalized).

The problem is, with people having to sell below what they paid and having low appraisals, the difference between what they sell for and what they paid can be tens of thousands of dollars and still be within 95% of the appraised value.

For example.
House purchase price: $250000
Appraised value: $225000
95% of appraised: $213750

So according to the IRP directive, that house could sell for $213750 and not have to prove a depressed market status to get reimbursed. But the difference between purchase and sale price is $36250, with only $15000 max coming from Core that leaves $21250 to come from Custom and Personalized.

That's where the confusion is. Obviously everyone's funding is different, but there are limited funds in Custom and Personalized to make up a difference like that. Everyone seems to have been told slightly different things from Brookfield about how HEA works and exactly how/if it gets reimbursed at all.

So, my question is, if anyone has any experience with this or can shed some light on what issues there could be making a claim for an amount like that I'd really like to hear it. I know there's lots of other people posted this year who are stressed about how low they should go when considering offers on their homes.

Thanks.


----------



## mariomike (3 May 2016)

bluecollared said:
			
		

> Regarding the IRP Directive section 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance, I think there's a lot of people posted out of Gagetown this year who are in a tough spot for selling their homes and being told different things about HEA.



For reference, perhaps "IRP Directive - Home Equity Assistance" will be merged with "Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)".
http://army.ca/forums/threads/95326.475.html
20 pages.


----------



## CountDC (5 May 2016)

Hope so and hopefully the OP will pass it on to his friends who will pass it on to theirs and so on and so on so everyone in Gagetown will see how really screwed they are.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (9 May 2016)

The real shocking thing is no one complains and tries to give money to the CF when their house investment goes up $40,000 but the second their investment drops by $30,000 it's the tax payer's job to cover their investment risk.

If you don't want to take the risk of losing money on a house purchase, rent. Otherwise you need to accept that it could go up or down and it's your gain or loss, not the CF's.


----------



## CountDC (10 May 2016)

oh oh. [


----------



## Lumber (13 May 2016)

bluecollared said:
			
		

> So, my question is, if anyone has any experience with this or can shed some light on what issues there could be making a claim for an amount like that I'd really like to hear it. I know there's lots of other people posted this year who are stressed about how low they should go when considering offers on their homes.
> Thanks.



One "issue", I guess, is that everyone's custom envelopes are different. The custom envelope is based on an _estimate_ of the cost of your move from point A to B (I can't remember if it's based on the mileage rate or the estimated moving cost). 

So, two people get posted out of Halifax. One is going to Victoria, one is going to Ottawa. The guy going to Victoria will have a much, MUCH bigger custom envelope than the guy moving to Ottawa.

If both take a hit on the sale of their houses in Halifax, the guys getting posted to Victoria will have a greater well of funds with which to cover his losses.


----------



## Brasidas (13 May 2016)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The real shocking thing is no one complains and tries to give money to the CF when their house investment goes up $40,000 but the second their investment drops by $30,000 it's the tax payer's job to cover their investment risk.
> 
> If you don't want to take the risk of losing money on a house purchase, rent. Otherwise you need to accept that it could go up or down and it's your gain or loss, not the CF's.



And when you've got three kids, two dogs, and two cats and you're posted into a market where three bedroom units literally do not exist, you should just shove your family into a 2 bedroom apartment?


----------



## dapaterson (13 May 2016)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And when you've got three kids, two dogs, and two cats and you're posted into a market where three bedroom units literally do not exist, you should just shove your family into a 2 bedroom apartment?



Don't be ridiculous.

Sell the kids to a rugmaker in India or Pakistan, then get a two bedroom apartment for you, your spouse, and the pets.


----------



## kratz (13 May 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> <snip>
> So, two people get posted out of Halifax. One is going to Victoria, one is going to Ottawa. The guy going to Victoria will have a much, MUCH bigger custom envelope than the guy moving to Ottawa.
> 
> If both take a hit on the sale of their houses in Halifax, the guys getting posted to Victoria will have a greater well of funds with which to cover his losses.



It boils down to "life choices". Does someone rent or buy? If they rent, there might be access to PMQ / RHU at a posting. If those options meet the family's needs.

If you chose to buy, you are at the mercy of the market. When you join you should know what benefits you are agreeing to, offered by the employer.  Granted, over a 25 year career those options can change, but then a person has the option to retire.


----------



## TCM621 (14 May 2016)

kratz said:
			
		

> It boils down to "life choices". Does someone rent or buy? If they rent, there might be access to PMQ / RHU at a posting. If those options meet the family's needs.
> 
> If you chose to buy, you are at the mercy of the market. When you join you should know what benefits you are agreeing to, offered by the employer.  Granted, over a 25 year career those options can change, but then a person has the option to retire.


You at the mercy of the market to some degree. The HEA, is so that the CF can move a member when it needs to even if  a unexpected downturn would cause them a financial burden. It is actually in the best interests of the CAF. 

For example,  let's examine the case of WO Bloggins. WO Bloggins has 23 years in and is on an IPS. He has recently been promoted and is now and AM Sup. He is a highly skilled and experienced AVN tech. 8 years ago he bought a house in Edmonton due to a lack of PMQs and the likelihood of a long posting. Unfortunately,  if WO Bloggins sells now he will be out 40k. The RCAF doesn't have a WO billet available in Edmonton, so he has to move. WO Bloggins is presented with 2 options move or get out. He has a life in Edmonton, a house he likes and that he knows will recover it's value in a few years. 

The CF would lose 40k if it provided HEA. They would gain some good will towards a loyal and skilled Airman and keep his experience. If they don't give it,  they would lose the cost of replacing an experienced helicopter maintainer. They would literally gain nothing. The replacement cost would far out way the loss of HEA. 

Of course is some cases the HEA would be higher relative to the replacement cost but in many cases it would be lower as well.  I am not sure what it cost to recruit and train a person up to a journeyman level(or higher) but I bet the HEA loss would have to be very high to offset it if someone quit over it.


----------



## Gunner98 (15 May 2016)

Maybe the WO could rent out his Edmonton home (to an incoming soldier) for the same amount (or more than) it will cost him to rent a nice home in the new location; thereby saving everyone money and ensuring he has a home to move back to if he so wishes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2016)

IIRC, renting the house out means zero benefits later to the WO when it comes to selling, etc from IRP as it would become an 'income property'.


----------



## TCM621 (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC, renting the house out means zero benefits later to the WO when it comes to selling, etc from IRP as it would become an 'income property'.


Not to mention all the hassle which comes from renting out a property in another province.


----------



## Pusser (16 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC, renting the house out means zero benefits later to the WO when it comes to selling, etc from IRP as it would become an 'income property'.



That's not quite true.  If the member rents out his house he is entitled to the Real Estate Incentive (REI) to a maximum of $12,000 (taxable) and if he later re-occupies it (e.g. gets posted back) he would then be able to claim real estate and legal fees for a future sale (i.e. if posted again or for an IPR move on retirement).  He can also declare it as his "primary residence" for up to four years while it's rented out, so he won't have to pay any tax on any capital gain made during the period he's not living in it.


----------



## QM (16 May 2016)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Maybe the WO could rent out his Edmonton home (to an incoming soldier) for the same amount (or more than) it will cost him to rent a nice home in the new location; thereby saving everyone money and ensuring he has a home to move back to if he so wishes.



It's threading a needle in a haystack to find just the right renter who wants exactly what your house offers, at that exact location at that exact time at that right price. Even with people posted-in and posted-out of the same Base, it's unbelievably unlikely that lightening will strike. And it certainly won't strike the hundreds of times it would need to as hundreds of people get posted into and out of that Base.


----------



## Nudibranch (17 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Not to mention all the hassle which comes from renting out a property in another province.



Rental management agencies. They take a cut to place a tenant and there's a (generally low) monthly fee.
Now, that option might be place-dependent. I imagine they'd exist in places like Edmonton, Victoria, Halifax...not sure about Cold Lake.


----------



## TCM621 (17 May 2016)

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> Rental management agencies. They take a cut to place a tenant and there's a (generally low) monthly fee.
> Now, that option might be place-dependent. I imagine they'd exist in places like Edmonton, Victoria, Halifax...not sure about Cold Lake.


That isn't really the point though. Yes renting is an option but even with am agency you have to deal with things that are happening in a different place and time Zone. If you move from Halifax to Victoria, your rental agency is probably closed by the time you get off work. A lot of people don't want to have to deal with that. And I don't remember seeing any rules stating that they have to. 

We should not be forced into major financial difficulties in order to suit the CAF. If we want to keep the best people,  ie people who have skills and traits employers want, we need to be reasonable. We lose too many good people because we are too willing to tell people that if they don't like it,  release.


----------



## Nudibranch (17 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That isn't really the point though. Yes renting is an option but even with am agency you have to deal with things that are happening in a different place and time Zone. If you move from Halifax to Victoria, your rental agency is probably closed by the time you get off work. A lot of people don't want to have to deal with that. And I don't remember seeing any rules stating that they have to.
> 
> We should not be forced into major financial difficulties in order to suit the CAF. If we want to keep the best people,  ie people who have skills and traits employers want, we need to be reasonable. We lose too many good people because we are too willing to tell people that if they don't like it,  release.



I'm not arguing your second para, just making a point that there is a way to be an out of province landlord (my rental management agency communicates with me via email - I have never had to deal with anything in urgent real-time. That's what they're paid to do, after all - _manage_ on my behalf, inc undertake urgent repairs up to a certain ceiling).


----------



## CountDC (18 May 2016)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And when you've got three kids, two dogs, and two cats and you're posted into a market where three bedroom units literally do not exist, you should just shove your family into a 2 bedroom apartment?



Maybe if you are lucky.  Most places won't allow it as you have too many pets.  Try finding a place for a family of 6 and a dog.


----------



## c_canuk (18 May 2016)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The real shocking thing is no one complains and tries to give money to the CF when their house investment goes up $40,000 but the second their investment drops by $30,000 it's the tax payer's job to cover their investment risk.
> 
> If you don't want to take the risk of losing money on a house purchase, rent. Otherwise you need to accept that it could go up or down and it's your gain or loss, not the CF's.



I'd like to address this red herring...

the value of a house, on average, appreciates over time. Generally after a 4 year posting you should expect to sell a 200K home for about 10-20 k more than you bought it. On average. This is called equity and it doesn't belong to the CF.

Because it is accepted that, on average, house values go up, the CF really doesn't get a claim on any equity.

On the other hand, the market is volatile, so in the moment the value may be quite a bit lower. Since the CF does not entertain waiting until the market is right to sell, they do have a claim on the loss.



Yeah I know some people who sold in Edmonton about a decade ago made out like bandits and when posted to Gagetown, Petawawa, etc drove up the markets to stupid amounts. I lost 30K because of the correction afterwards. 

Now if the CAF wants to get away from that liability, then they need to either stop posting people or fix the PMQ situation and make them competitive, available, and well maintained.

My proof that they are not is this... I'm in Ottawa and it's cheaper for me to *buy* a bigger condo including fees and property taxes a 30 minute bus ride from NDHQ than it is to *rent* a smaller, not so well maintained PMQ in Uplands. That's broken.


----------



## heavy reader (23 Aug 2016)

ALCON:

I would like to thank everyone involved on this thread for providing input (both positive and critical) on the HEA issue over the past 6 years. 

However, it is over. 

Although we took the TBS to federal court which determined they were cheating HEA applicants http://canlii.ca/t/g77g4, they refused to pay out http://canlii.ca/t/gnfqd.

MWO (Ret) Neil Dodsworth https://ca.news.yahoo.com/soldier-neil-dodsworth-drops-home-093000110.html had also ceased the class action due to reasons beyond his control. I cannot thank Neil enough for his courage to take this on, when I faltered and needed to regroup. He is a real advocate for our troops and a good friend.

Further, my previous MP (Robert Chisholm) was sage guidance and extreme help during navigation through the governmental processes. I will be forever grateful for his support.  

I wish the HEA outcome was decided in favour of following the policy, and none of this was necessary however we all see things going wrong and do our best to never pass a fault.

There's not much more that can be said, except thank you all for trying to hold the government accountable to their own policies. Lets hope that someone with more fire in their belly can take this on and resolve it for future relocations, oh and by the way - here is how to fix it: https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hea-study.pdf.

UBIQUE!


----------



## armyman7877 (24 Aug 2016)

I can relate to these families. We have found ourselves in a similar position this year. Dealing with Brookefield has been a nightmare and getting your money back is almost nill.


----------



## armyman7877 (27 Aug 2016)

Hi all so the offer we had on or home fell through because they did not sell their home. Our agent wants us to drop another 10,000 for any hopes of selling. We are around 30,00 less then appraised value in May and around 14,00 less than we paid in 12. My question is how much does Brook field pay back and how long will it take to receive the money? We were told we did qualify.  If anyone knows the answers thanks.


----------

