• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Have you applied for 100% HEA out of Core and been denied?

  • Yes. No further action taken.

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Yes. But I was told applying for it was futile.

    Votes: 9 17.0%
  • Yes. I am currently grieving the decision.

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Yes. My grievance is at the CDS.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • No. I have not applied for 100% HEA out of core.

    Votes: 24 45.3%
  • No. (I have 100% HEA out of Core awarded).

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • No. I was dissuaded from selling/moving/posting due to large home equity loss.

    Votes: 9 17.0%

  • Total voters
    53
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!
 
Unfortunately Question Period is just like a kindergarten class, but hopefully it starts to gain some traction in the media.
 
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. 

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!

Here's the link http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Home-Equity-AssistanceCFIRP-discussion-4729718/about
 
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.
 
Is this something that will be done across the country? Sounds like a great initiative.
 
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 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.

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.

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



 
newwifey said:
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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."

 
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.  ;)
 
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)


 
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?

 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top