Docket: T-5225-25
Citation: 2026 FC 938
Ottawa, Ontario, July 13, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ROBERT BRIGGS
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] The Applicant, Commander Robert Briggs (Retired), seeks judicial review of the decision of General M.A.J. Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff [CDS], acting as the Final Authority [FA] in the Canadian Armed Forces [CAF] grievance process.
[2] The Applicant grieved the decision of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration [DCBA] denying his request for additional reimbursement of his significant financial losses incurred with respect to the sale of his home in St. Albert, Alberta, when he was posted by the CAF to Ottawa, Ontario. The grievance was referred to the Director General Compensation and Benefits [DGCB] for determination as the initial authority [IA]. The IA denied the grievance. The matter was next referred to the Military Grievance External Review Committee [Review Committee] which recommended that the FA afford the Applicant, the grievor, redress by directing that his request for 100% reimbursement of his loss in equity be submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat [TBS] for approval. However, the FA denied the grievance, found that the loss was not an exceptional circumstance and refused to recommend the Applicant’s file to the TBS for consideration.
[3] The Applicant at all levels of his grievance and in preparing the written submission for this judicial review was self-represented. He was represented by counsel only at the actual hearing of this judicial review.
[4] For the following reasons, I am granting this application.
Background
[5] Before providing a more detailed factual background and describing the decision under review, it is perhaps helpful to first provide some situational context by describing the legislative framework for CAF grievances and the CAF relocation policy. The most relevant provisions are also found in Appendix A of these reasons.
i. Legislative and Regulatory Framework for CAF Grievances
[6] As set out by the Respondent, the statutory and regulatory framework for the grievance process is established by sections 29 to 29.15 of the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 [NDA], Chapter 7 of Volume I of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders [QR&O], and is implemented by Defence Administrative Orders and Directives [DAOD] 2017-0 “Military Grievances”
and DAOD 2017-1 “Military Grievance Process,”
which were in effect at the relevant time.
[7] The CAF grievance process provides for two levels of review and decisions. The IA conducts the first review, followed by the FA, which is the CDS or her delegate (QR&O, s 7.15 and 7.16; NDA, s 29.11). Certain grievances, including those relating to “pay, allowances and other financial benefits,”
must be referred to the Review Committee for a recommendation prior to being considered and determined by the FA (NDA, s 29.12(1); QR&O, s 7.21(c)).
[8] The Review Committee is an arms-length legal body mandated under the NDA to investigate and review grievances referred to it by the FA (NDA, s 29.2(1)). The Review Committee is required to provide its findings and recommendations in writing to the FA and to the CAF member who submitted the grievance (NDA, s 29.2(1)). The FA is not bound by the Review Committee’s findings and recommendations but must provide reasons if it does not act on them (NDA, s 29.13). The FA must conduct an impartial, de novo review, which cures any fairness-related shortcomings in the original decision-making process (DAOD 2017-1, s 8.22; McBride v Canada (National Defence), 2012 FCA 181 at paras 43-45).
ii. CAF Integrated Relocation Program
[9] The Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Integrated Relocation Program [CFIRP], effective April 19, 2018, to March 31, 2021, is the version of the CFIRP that is relevant to this matter. The CFIRP states that it represents the Treasury Board’s [TB] approved policy for CAF members on relocation (section 1.1.01). The CFIRP sets out the benefits and applicable funding available to CAF members when they are required by the CAF to relocate.
[10] Benefits paid under the CFIRP are comprised of “Core,”
“Custom,”
and “Personalized”
components. These components of benefits are distinct but are interdependent sets of entitlements (CFIRP, s 1.2.01). Core benefits are described as those essential to relocation; Custom benefits are described as enhancements to a relocation; and, Personalized benefits are described as non-essential, but attributable to relocation (CFIRP, s 1.2.02; see also, s 1.2.03 to 1.2.05).
[11] Section 8.2.13 of the CFIRP sets out the Home Equity Assistance [HEA]. It states:
8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
A member to whom this Directive applies is entitled to be reimbursed for any financial loss incurred in relation to the sale of their principal residence if:
• the closing date for the sale is on or after 19 April 2018; and
• the sale price is less than the purchase price paid by the member.
The reimbursable amount is equivalent to the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price minus any reduction in the sale price that is identified in the agreement of purchase of sale and attributable to anything in the principal residence that required repair or replacement.
Despite the definition of purchase price in Section 1.04, in relation to a principal residence that was a new home construction, the purchase price is the sum of the costs:
• identified in the Building Agreement, and
• incurred during the first year of occupancy of the residence for initial landscaping if those costs were not identified in the Building Agreement.
The reimbursable amount will be paid as follows:
Core benefit
80% of the reimbursable amount or $30,000, whichever is less.
Custom benefit
The reimbursable amount minus the amount paid under the Core Benefit.
Personalized benefit
The reimbursable amount minus the amounts paid under the Core and Custom Benefits.
NOTE
Payments for Home Equity Assistance may have income tax implications. Members who receive this benefit should confirm the taxation rules applicable to their circumstances.
(TB amended, 19 April 2018)
[12] The total amount for which a member can be reimbursed is subject to amounts available in each of the three types of benefits. These amounts are calculated with a personalized formula set out at section 1.2 of the CFIRP.
[13] In cases where a CAF member has incurred reasonable expenses resulting from exceptional circumstances or demands that do not appear to be covered by the relocation policy, or, they do not agree with the application or the interpretation of the CFIRP policy by the service provider, they may submit requests for clarification or adjudication to the DCBA (CFIRP, s 1.3.02). “Exceptional circumstances”
are defined as including “but are not limited to, weather conditions, operational requirements or travel to remote areas. They are rare and shall only be considered in cases of extreme and unforeseen situations”
(CFIRP, s 1.3.02).
iii. Background leading up to the decision under review
[14] The Applicant joined the CAF in 1989 as a Medical Officer. In 2012 he was posted to Alberta where he entered into a building agreement for a home in St. Albert in the amount of $1,024,398.90. In May 2020, the Applicant was posted to Ottawa. On June 2, 2020, his home was appraised for $965,000. On June 11, 2020, he signed an agreement to list his St. Albert home for sale for $939,000. Over the next approximately 10 months, the Applicant lowered the listing price of his home several times. On March 12, 2021, the Applicant sold his home for $865,000.
[15] The Applicant was eligible for relocation benefits under the CFIRP. Based on the purchase price of his home ($1,024,398.90), plus eligible landscaping costs ($29,620.50) less the sale price of his home ($865,000) the Applicant suffered a significant home equity loss in the amount of $189,019.40.
[16] The Applicant received an HEA reimbursement of $43,650.39 from his Core, Custom and Personal funding envelopes. As only the first $15,000 of the $30,000 core funding is a tax-free reimbursement, his actual (net) recovery was $28,313.84.
[17] In July 2021, the Applicant submitted a request to the DCBA for additional HEA benefits. The DCBA described the request as made in consideration of the real estate market as well as the personal impact of taxable relocation benefits. The DCBA denied the Applicant’s request in a decision dated July 31, 2021, finding that he did not have the authority to override the CFIRP policy limits prescribed for HEA benefits.
[18] In October 2021, the Applicant grieved the DCBA’s decision, the primary tenant of his grievance being that the HEA is inadequate in circumstances such as his. He described the circumstances resulting in his significant loss of equity and, by way of redress, sought an additional $166,085.06. This amount was the loss of equity of $194,398.90 (calculated using an estimated $35,000 for landscaping costs) less the net HEA of $28,313.84, representing the amount that he was out of pocket for the loss of equity on his house due to his posting to Ottawa.
[19] The grievance was referred for determination to the DGCB, as the IA under the CAF grievance process. In a decision dated June 20, 2022, the IA determined the Applicant had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies and regulations and denied his grievance.
[20] At the Applicant’s request, the grievance was submitted to the FA for consideration in July 2022. In accordance with subsection 29.12(1) of the NDA, and section 7.21 of the QR&O, the grievance was first referred to the Review Committee for review and to provide findings and recommendations to the FA.
[21] In a 24-page report dated November 23, 2023, the Review Committee found the Applicant to be aggrieved. The Review Committee recommended that the FA afford the grievor redress by directing that his request for 100% reimbursement of his loss of equity expense be submitted to the TBS for approval with the full support of the CAF.
[22] The Review Committee provided background information pertaining to the ongoing concern with the adequacy of the HEA.
[23] The Review Committee also referred to a 2018 CBC interview with the DCBA, speaking as the subject matter expert for compensation and benefits issues in the CAF. He confirmed that 95% of all CAF relocations do not result in a catastrophic loss of family wealth and that those CAF families are fully protected by the current CFIRP HEA provisions. The Review Committee found that the 2018 DCBA statement was factual evidence that the relatively small number of CAF families who do experience catastrophic loss of their equity on the sale of their homes due to relocation reflect truly exceptional circumstances. The Review Committee found that the Applicant’s loss of equity in the amount of $159,398.90 (this amount does not include landscaping costs) is an exceptional circumstance as described by the DCBA in 2018.
Decision Under Review
[24] In a decision dated December 1, 2025, the FA denied the Applicant’s request that he be reimbursed for the entirety of the financial loss he incurred upon the sale of his home in Alberta and his relocation to Ottawa. The FA determined the Applicant was treated fairly in accordance with the applicable policies and instructions, namely the CAF relocation policies and TB instructions. The FA also refused to recommend his file for consideration by the TBS.
[25] The FA states that the issue before her was whether the Applicant was entitled to receive 100% HEA reimbursement for the equity that he lost with the sale of his home in St. Albert resulting from his relocation to Ottawa. The FA acknowledged the Review Committee’s analysis as thorough and comprehensive, but did not agree with a number of its findings.
[26] Relying upon documentary evidence, including a February 2021 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report and statistics from the Canadian Real Estate Association, the FA found there was “remarkable stability”
in the average price of housing in Edmonton in the 2018 to 2021 period. The FA therefore concluded that the decrease in value of the Applicant’s home was not uniquely or primarily due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the broader real estate market did not decrease in an exceptional manner, including as a result of factors such as the price of oil and gas.
[27] Because she found that the equity loss sustained by the Applicant upon relocation was not an “exceptional circumstance,”
the FA held that section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP did not apply in the Applicant’s situation and decided not to refer his file to the TBS for further consideration. The FA also held that she retains the discretion to seek TBS approval for cases the FA determines to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.
[28] The FA further acknowledged the 2018 statement made by the DCBA, cited by the Review Committee, regarding the inadequacy of the HEA benefit for CAF members who have sustained catastrophic losses above $30,000, but found that the DCBA’s opinion did not constitute policy, nor reflect the opinion of the CAF. The FA disagreed with the Review Committee’s finding that the Applicant’s equity loss meets the requirements for a submission to the TBS under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP. The FA also disagreed with the Review Committee’s recommendation that any equity loss over $30,000 should be considered an exceptional circumstance and held that this would amount to a “de facto policy decision,”
where only the TB has authority to make such a decision.
Issue and Standard of Review
[29] Having considered the parties’ submissions as to the issues, I find that they can be reframed as follows:
- Did the FA have the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to determine whether there were
“exceptional circumstances”
within the meaning of the CFIRP?
- Is the FA’s decision reasonable?
[30] With respect to the standard of review, the Applicant submits that the presumptive standard of review is reasonableness. Although in his written submissions he also submitted the question of whether the FA acted unreasonably and outside of her jurisdiction raises a procedural fairness issue, when appearing before me his counsel confirmed that the reasonableness standard applies to all of the Applicant’s submissions.
[31] I agree with the parties that the standard of review on the merits of the FA’s decision is reasonableness (Alldowell v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 142 at para 40). On judicial review, the Court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 99).
Did the FA have the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to determine whether there were “exceptional circumstances”
within the meaning of the CFIRP?
Applicant’s position
[32] The Applicant submits this application for judicial review should be granted on the sole basis that the FA acted unreasonably and ultra vires her jurisdiction in refusing to refer his request for full reimbursement to the TBS. The Applicant notes that section 8.2.13 of the CFIRP allows for the reimbursement of $30,000 in situations of home equity loss upon relocation. However, he submits that should the equity loss incurred by a CAF member upon relocation exceed $30,000, then it is the TBS and not the CAF who holds exclusive authority to determine whether “exceptional circumstances”
under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP exist so as to warrant full reimbursement. The Applicant submits that, in finding his situation did not constitute an “exceptional circumstance,”
the FA therefore improperly stepped into the shoes of the TBS and acted outside of her jurisdiction.
[33] The Applicant also argues that the FA unreasonably, and outside of her jurisdiction, refused to refer his request for reimbursement to the TBS and acted contrary to a CDS decision dated September 2, 2020, directing the Chief of Military Personnel [CMP] to ensure that a case is made to the TBS for all CAF members who have incurred “catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000”
.
Respondent’s position
[34] The Respondent submits it was open to the FA to conclude that she holds the authority and discretion to determine whether a matter constitutes “exceptional circumstances”
and, if such circumstances exist, whether to subsequently refer it to the TBS for consideration and approval under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP. The Respondent submits the FA reasonably concluded that the TBS’s authority is predicated on meeting the requirement of “exceptional circumstances”
or circumstances “not clearly provided for in [the CFIRP]”
, and that the determination of whether exceptional circumstances existed was to be made before the matter is submitted to the TBS for approval. The Respondent argues that in implicitly finding she has authority to determine whether “exceptional circumstances”
exist, the FA was interpreting her authority within the CFIRP and is therefore entitled to deference (citing Vavilov at para 67).
[35] The Respondent further argues that the Applicant’s reliance on the September 2020 CDS decision is misplaced. That decision is a direction to the CMP to engage with the TBS and develop a new, catastrophic equity loss mechanism and that pending the implementation of such a mechanism, the CMP is to support CAF members. No such mechanism has been developed. Further, this was an internal direction not reflected in the CFIRP and does not fetter the FA’s discretion under the CFIRP.
Analysis
[36] As a preliminary point, I note that although other issues were addressed in the FA’s decision, both parties agree that the only matter at issue before me is the FA’s treatment of the HEA.
[37] It is also not in dispute that the FA has the authority to consider grievances related to relocation benefits.
[38] Section 29.11 of the NDA states that the CDS “is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.”
A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding subject only to judicial review by this Court (NDA, s 29.15).
[39] Reimbursement for expenses arising out of a CAF member’s service is determined and regulated by the TB (NDA, s 35):
Pay and Allowances
Treasury Board to establish
35 (1) The rates and conditions of issue of pay of officers and non-commissioned members, other than military judges, shall be established by the Treasury Board.
Reimbursements and allowances
(2) The payments that may be made to officers and non-commissioned members by way of reimbursement for travel or other expenses and by way of allowances in respect of expenses and conditions arising out of their service shall be determined and regulated by the Treasury Board.
[40] Pursuant to section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP, the authorities of the TBS and others, with respect to relocation expenses, is set out:
Section 2.1 Authorities
2.1.01 Authorities
Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), has authority to:
• approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the CF member’s relocation but are either an exceptional circumstance or are not clearly provided for in this policy.
Grievance Authorities and Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA):
• If a CF member has not received a benefit because the relevant circumstances, although not dissimilar to, were different from the circumstances established, then the appropriate grievance authority for relocation benefits or DCBA may, if he or she considers it would be equitable and consistent with the purpose of the CFIRP, approve the payment of all or part of that benefit.
Director Relocation Business Management (DRBM) has the authority to:
• approve reimbursement or recovery of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the CF Member’s relocation that are provided for in this policy or as authorized by TBS or DCBA.
Base Commanders (BComd) or the Base Administration Officers (BAdmO) have the authority to:
• render decisions on entitlements specified within the CFIRP policy.
(TB amended 16 September 2014)
[41] Moreover, albeit in a different factual context, this Court has previously held that the CDS acts within its statutory and regulatory jurisdiction when considering and denying the redress of a grievance (Codrin v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 100 at para 46).
[42] In this matter the FA prefaced her HEA analysis by stating:
that pursuant to the NDA, Section 35 (Pay and Allowances), the Treasury Board (TB) has sole authority to determine and regulate reimbursement for relocation, travel or other expenses arising out of service for CAF members. This authority is carried out by way of the CFIRP Directive. As such, I am unable to make exceptions to the policy.
[43] The FA then considered whether the Applicant had established exceptional circumstances such that his request should be directed to the TBS. Having concluded that he did not, the FA refused to recommend the request for consideration by the TBS.
[44] On that point, in his grievance submission to the IA the Applicant stated that the primary tenet of his grievance was that the HEA is inadequate in situations such as his. Among other submissions, he stated that he was forced to sell his home during an unprecedented real estate depression caused by the combined effects of the collapse of the Alberta oil and gas industry and the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The DCBA did not address exceptional circumstances. It found that it did not have the authority to override the TB’s “pre-set criteria,”
referencing CFIRP section 8.2.13.
[45] In his July 19, 2022, request for review by the FA, the Applicant stated that he accepted that his reimbursement was consistent with current policy, but requested that the consideration also take into account the extraordinary circumstances affecting house owners, particularly in Alberta, who were forced to move by the CAF during annual posting season [APS] 2020; the inadequacy of the TB policy in covering losses to the degree suffered due to these previously unpredictable circumstances; and, the inequity in terms of how different CAF peers were treated in terms of being forced to move during APS 2020.
[46] He further submitted that the term “people first”
is often used within the CAF as a guide to ensure its people are treated with fairness, equity, empathy, and transparency. However, that all-too-frequently there is a failure to back these words with action. He submitted that the case he presented was a legitimate grievance that was deserving of careful, and compassionate consideration as well as the backing of the CAF to approach the TB and seek special consideration for those who, through no fault of their own, suffered devastating losses in their service to the crown due to extenuating and unprecedented circumstances. He, and other CAF members, have accepted a personal cost and risk in service of the crown, including in places such as Afghanistan. He asked that the CAF accept the responsibility to put people first, argue for the TB to modify policy to account for extraordinary circumstances that have occurred and are likely to recur in the future, and right the wrong on behalf of himself and the many other CAF members like him. He made a similar submission following the Review Committee report.
[47] The FA did not expressly address the question of her authority to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances exist. This may be because this was not an issue that was put to her by the Applicant. However, as is clear from the FA’s decision, her focus was on whether or not exceptional circumstances existed. In that regard, the FA relied on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports and statistics from the Canadian Real Estate Association which were disclosed to the Applicant on November 20, 2025, and who responded to the same on November 24, 2025.
[48] Unfortunately, in this judicial review, neither party delved into the statutory interpretation of section 35 of the NDA or section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP or provided jurisprudence addressing these provisions. On its face, I cannot agree with the Applicant that section 2.1.01, which states that the TBS has authority to “
approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the CF member’s relocation but are either an
exceptional circumstance or are not clearly provided for in this policy”
, serves to reserve exclusive authority to the TBS to determine what are, or are not, exceptional circumstances in any given case. Rather, the TBS reserves to itself the exclusive authority to approve reimbursement for any such expenses. As to section 35 of the NDA, this confirms that it is the TBS that establishes the payments that can be made to CAF members as reimbursement for expenses and by way of allowances in respect of expenses and conditions arising out of their service. Those payments of reimbursements are reflected in the CFIRP which is administered by the CAF. Thus, the CAF may make a determination of whether or not an expense is an exceptional circumstance, the reimbursement of which is to be determined by the TBS.
[49] I accept the Respondent’s submission that the FA implicitly found that she had the authority to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances exist, based on the CFIRP and her role as the final decision-maker in the grievance process.
[50] On that point, I also note that this Court has previously recognized, given the highly specialized nature of the grievance process in the military context, that the CDS acting as the FA in the CAF grievance process is entitled to a high degree of deference and must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation (Bond-Castelli v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 1155 at para 31).
[51] I find that the FA did not exceed her jurisdiction in making that determination.
Is the FA’s decision reasonable?
Applicant’s position
[52] The Applicant argues that the FA acted contrary to a CDS decision dated September 2, 2020, directing the CMP to ensure that a case is made to the TBS for all CAF members who have incurred “catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000”
. He submits that the FA should have similarly forwarded his request for full reimbursement to the TBS.
[53] In the alternative, the Applicant submits the FA’s decision is unreasonable because the evidence placed before the FA demonstrates clear and unambiguous “exceptional circumstances”
warranting the matter’s referral to the TBS. Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic itself, leading to unpredictable and unforeseen societal consequences; pandemic-imposed constraints on market and real estate activity, including general buyer reluctance, restrictions on in-person showings and open houses, travel restrictions, reduced mobility and migration to Alberta, and reduced CAF posting activity into Canadian Forces Base [CFB] Edmonton limiting likely buyers in the St. Albert sub-market; and, the Edmonton-area housing market being depressed at the time he sold his home due to a depressed oil and gas industry in Alberta.
Respondent’s position
[54] The Respondent submits the FA’s conclusion that the Applicant did not establish “exceptional circumstances”
existed in his case is justified in light of the facts and law bearing upon it. The FA found that the COVID-19 pandemic was neither a negative nor an exceptional circumstance impacting the real estate market in Edmonton, and that the broader market did not decrease exceptionally due to external factors including the price of oil in Alberta. The Respondent contends that the evidence supported those findings and the fact that another conclusion could be drawn based on the record before the FA does not undermine the reasonableness of the FA’s decision.
[55] The Respondent argues that the FA engaged with the Applicant’s submissions, including those regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on market conditions, but then reasonably relied on “high-quality, reputable evidence”
in finding the Applicant’s financial losses did not stem from exceptional circumstances. The Respondent submits the FA was not required to refer to every piece of evidence (citing Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at para 16) and that whether another conclusion could be drawn based on the evidence before her does not undermine the reasonableness of the FA’s decision. The Respondent also argues that the FA’s decision is reasonable having regard to the policy governing her decision-making, and notes that where the FA did not follow the Review Committee’s findings and recommendations, she provided reasons for her departure – as required by section 29.13 of the NDA – and clearly explained her rationale for doing so.
Analysis
i. Refusal to forward the request
[56] In his written argument, the Applicant argues that the FA failed to follow prior CDS decisions in refusing to forward his request for reimbursement to the TBS. While the Applicant made this submission with respect to the issue of the FA’s authority, in my view, this is really a question of the reasonableness of the FA’s decision.
[57] As it is put in the Respondent’s written submissions, the CAF may only grant the provisional limit imposed by the HEA benefit. As such, the Applicant grieved the decision not to refer his case to the TBS, which has the authority to approve reimbursements for up to 100% of losses.
[58] The Applicant argues that, by refusing to refer his request for reimbursement to the TBS, the CDS acted contrary to a directive of her own office dated September 2, 2020, and, therefore, acted unreasonably.
[59] As indicated above, the FA was not required to accept the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee but, if rejecting them, she had to explain why.
[60] The Review Committee report provided background information about the longstanding and ongoing problem of CAF families suffering catastrophic equity losses when they must sell their homes because they have been relocated by the CAF.
[61] In its analysis, the Review Committee stated that over the past three years it has seen a rising number of grievances from CAF members who have experienced severe financial hardship as a result of massive equity losses due to their relocation. Many of these grievances hinge on the revision to the CFIRP, which became effective April 19, 2018 (the version at issue in the matter before me), and which removed the entitlement to receive 100% HEA reimbursement of lost equity from the Core envelope for homes sold in a depressed market. The Review Committee stated that the vast majority of the grievances it has seen have originated from personnel posted from Cold Lake, Alberta. In this matter, the grievor (Applicant) relocated from St. Albert, Alberta, a community just outside of Edmonton and nearby CFB Edmonton. Although each grievance is unique, all grievors have experienced significant financial hardships as a result of their ordered relocation.
[62] The Review Committee stated:
The Catastrophic Loss of Equity
The extent of the equity loss suffered by the grievor is truly exceptional as I will explain. There can be no doubt that it is directly related to his military relocation. To fully appreciate the magnitude of this injustice, it is necessary to review the long history that the CAF and the Committee share on this important issue.
During his May 2018 interview with the CBC reporter following the 19 April 2018 revision of the HEA policy, the DCBA made four very important points. He first explained that the new HEA policy now protects 95% of all CAF members who experience home equity losses due to posting. He then went on to acknowledge that, in certain locations such as Cold Lake, members can often lose money on the sale of their homes through no fault of their own. He further explained that some of those losses greatly exceeded the $30,000 HEA limit and were catastrophic to the CAF members affected. Finally, he stated that the CDS was aware of the situation and desires a solution but that, to date, no solution has been found (pp.294-295).
Background - Catastrophic Loss of Equity
The Committee has reviewed numerous grievance files over the past eleven years dealing with the gross inadequacy of the CFIRP HEA provisions in the face of CAF families suffering catastrophic loss of equity selling their homes on posting. Annex A to this report contains a growing summary of relevant dates and financial details extracted from those cases, as well as select comments from previous Committee Findings and Recommendations reports and from several important CDS grievance decisions. Annex B to this report focuses on the financial impact experienced by grievors since amendments to the HEA benefit came into effect on 19 April 2018.
In the 2018 DCBA/CBC interview, the DCBA, speaking as the subject matter expert for compensation and benefits issues in the CAF, confirmed that fully 95% of all CAF relocations do not result in a catastrophic loss of family wealth and that those CAF families are fully protected by the current CFIRP HEA provisions. I find that the 2018 DCBA statement is factual evidence that the relatively small number of CAF families who do experience catastrophic loss of their equity on the sale of their homes due to relocation reflect truly exceptional circumstances.
Unfortunately, being considered exceptional offers no comfort to those CAF families that the DCBA admits are not properly protected by the new HEA provisions. These recent grievance files confirm that CAF members remain highly vulnerable to extreme and debilitating financial losses as a result of being forced to sell their homes in bad markets due to military relocations.
In reviewing the data compiled in Annex A, I note that the highest home equity loss observed to date by the Committee is a loss of $249,000. The average equity loss computes as $83,877, representing an average 23.2% loss of equity for those CAF families. Although the majority of affected families were posted to Cold Lake, hard hit by downturns in the oil and gas industry, similar losses have sometimes occurred in other housing markets across Canada as well.
I am especially concerned by the data compiled in Annex B of the more recent losses experienced in Cold Lake since the removal of the depressed market clause, where the average equity loss now computes to $103,208.03. The average out-of-pocket loss experienced by these members after receiving the maximum allowable HEA benefit has grown to approximately $66,000 before taxation is even considered. Numerous grievors have explained how such losses have negatively affected their lives and wellbeing, impacted their housing opportunities at their new postings and required loans, or the spending of RRSP savings, to pay off their existing mortgages. This recent data makes it clear that the five percent of CAF families not adequately protected by the current HEA policy are continuing to suffer greatly, and that urgent action is required to relieve that suffering.
[63] The Review Committee then went on to describe its prior view as included in an article published in 2011; the CAF Ombudsman’s view as expressed in a letter to the Minister of National Defence in 2016 expressing similar concerns about the HEA program; and, the ongoing views and concerns expressed by the Commander 4 Wing and Commander 1 Canadian Air Division in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020. The Review Committee set out various of these communications, I include here by way of example, the 2019 communication of the Commander of the 4 Wing describing the situation as follows:
2. … Depressed Market Status ceased to exist as a policy tool as of 1 April 2018, leaving no clear recourse for members whose purchase and sale dates do not fit within defined parameters, including all those who sell after 1 April 2018. Many of my members are facing severe, and in some cases catastrophic financial losses, some have lost and others anticipate losing over $100,000 in equity. The benefit change that increased Home Equity Assistance (HEA) from $15,000 to $30,000 is a welcome improvement, however, this support is reduced due to taxable status of the second $15,000, and when combined with equity losses well in excess of $50,000 members are still suffering crippling financial impacts.
[64] The Review Committee also described subsequent correspondence which speaks to concerns about the mental health of the members, as well as the posting avoidance and attrition problems being caused by the lack of adequate HEA compensation and recommending further review of the HEA policy.
[65] Notably, the Review Committee next described the CDS views which I reproduce below at length:
The Chief of the Defence Staff View
Annex A shows that the office of the CDS has consistently agreed with the Committee that the CFIRP HEA benefit remained inadequate, and that CAF families should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses simply because they were serving in the CAF. The CDS responded to the Committee’s previous recommendations by directing that the DGCB, in cooperation with the TBS, review the CFIRP HEA provisions in order to improve the catastrophic loss protection, and to minimize the negative impacts on CAF families.
The following CDS direction first appeared in a 2011 CDS grievance decision in response to a systemic recommendation from the Committee:
Systemic Issue. However, [the Committee] was also of the opinion that the current HEA policy is inadequate because it does not contain a discretionary mechanism to deal with undue financial hardship in unique situations, such as yours. [The Committee] believes that the lack of such a mechanism disregards the aim of the National Joint Council Relocation [NJC IRP] Directive to “relocate an employee in the most efficient fashion … while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and his/her family …”.
It is for this reason, therefore, that I have already directed DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with TB with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members.
As noted by [the Committee], there is an email on file from DCBA that states “Given other more pressing priorities and TBS conviction that there simply isn’t a big enough problem to justify a submission to TB for a policy change, we have not pursued this vigorously.” I am well aware of the good work DCBA conducts on behalf of all members of the CF. However, we cannot allow TBS to determine what constitutes “a big enough problem” in the CF. While it is true that members are not obligated to purchase a home, our members often do not have the housing options TBS may believe are accessible to them. … As the relocation of members is done according to the exigencies of the CF, our members often find themselves without the luxury of waiting out a market downturn to sell or obtain a roof over their heads. Further, members should retain the same opportunities available to all Canadians to purchase a home.
It is for this reason, therefore, that I have already directed DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with TB with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members.
I further note that Canada’s Defence Policy - Strong, Secure, Engaged - places great emphasis on enhancing support to military families that undergo relocation, stating that military families are “… integral to our military success”. The support to CAF personnel and their families is described as follows (pp.289-290):
Delivering on our commitment to our people and their families is a sacred obligation and requires a comprehensive suite of initiatives that cover all aspects of how we recruit, lead, train and care for sailors, soldiers, airwomen and men, as well as all those who support them. As Canada and Canadians change, so too must our approach to our people. To ensure they and their families thrive, we will continue to incorporate progressive best practices into our approach. Throughout, our actions must be underpinned by a sense of compassion and responsibility towards the women and men who wear the uniform, and their loved ones.
Similarly, the NJC IRP Directive states that the intent of the government in forming relocation policy is as follows (p.281):
1.2 Purpose and Scope
1.2.1 It is the policy of the government that in any relocation, the aim shall be to relocate an employee in the most efficient fashion, at the most reasonable cost to the public while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and his/her family and on departmental operations. [emphasis added]
The CDS grievance decisions noted in Annex A have steadfastly reflected his fundamental core belief that all CAF families deserve protection from these devastating and life destroying financial losses brought on by the exigencies of military service. Over the past three years, the CDS has rendered decisions in over 17 HEA grievance files similar to the present case.
On 2 September 2020, the CDS rendered his decision on Committee file 2019-302. The CDS endorsed the following Committee Systemic Recommendations for this file:
• that the Final Authority direct the CMP to immediately engage with the TBS in order to develop a catastrophic equity loss mechanism that would reimburse CAF members who suffer equity losses greater than $30,000; and
• pending the development and implementation of such an addition to the CFIRP HEA benefit, that the CMP be directed to support and staff all CAF member claims seeking 100% reimbursement of catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000 to TBS for approval under the CFIRP article 2.1.01 and that such staffing continue until the catastrophic loss of equity provision has been incorporated into the CFIRP.
In that decision, the CDS wrote the following:
As I have said in previous decisions, it remains my belief that the Federal Government and the CAF have an obligation to protect members and their families from such devastating financial losses brought on by the exigencies of military service. With that in mind, I will direct that your case be brought before the TB with a recommendation that you be afforded HEA for 100% of the financial loss incurred with the sale of your home in Cold Lake.
Final Authority Direction. In reviewing your file, I noted that your case is not unique. As explained by the Committee, the current CFIRP HEA policy does not address the harm being caused to the small segment of CAF members who suffer catastrophic loss of home equity on relocation. For those individuals and their families, the HEA benefit remains inadequate as they should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses as a result of them serving in the CAF. I am, therefore, directing CMP, in cooperation with the TB, to review CFIRP HEA provisions with an aim of implementing some form of catastrophic loss protection and, in doing so, minimizing the negative impact on CAF families. This should include a discretionary mechanism to deal with undue financial hardship in unique situations like the one you find yourself in.
In the interim, I also direct CMP, in accordance with CFIRP article 2.1.01 (Authorities), to ensure that a case is made to the TB for all CAF members who have incurred catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000 since 18 April 2018.
Some 19 months later, on 13 April 2022, the current CDS (at the time, the Acting CDS) reaffirmed this direction in his most recent decision on Committee File no. 2021-151,5 writing:
Final Authority Direction Update. In reviewing your file, I noted that your case is not unique. The current HEA policy has removed the ability to apply for 100% reimbursement for homes sold in depressed market areas and, in doing so, fails to address the harm being caused to CAF members who suffer a catastrophic loss of home equity upon relocation. The HEA benefit remains inadequate as they should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses as a result of service in the CAF. Based on previous direction on this matter, TB and the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) have been in consultation to discuss the situation affecting members who sold their residences at a loss in Cold Lake. As a result, TB directed DCBA to initiate a market study assessing the periods of 2014-2018 and 2018-2020. The study remains ongoing.
Barring this, and anticipating limited flexibility to address the lack of a catastrophic loss clause, I would offer that- in future - should losses over $30K be anticipated by a CAF member, that a member’s branch leadership should be mandated to explore and implement alternate APS courses of action to negate the potential for long-term financial impact to our CAF families, to include remote virtual work potential as well as possible posting cancellations. These means, while not optimal, are within the CAF’s capacity to influence. This said, I direct CMP to investigate a mechanism through which to implement this CAF-centric approach quickly, be that through Canadian Forces General Messages or similar order to ensure rapid, consistent implementation across the force.
Implementation. I direct CMP to ensure your request for 100% reimbursement of equity expense be submitted to the TB, in accordance with CFIRP article 2.1.01, for approval with the full support of the CAF. Notwithstanding my direction, the TB is external to the CAF and there is no guarantee of success in your case. Additionally, it is important to note that the future TB decision on your file is not grievable. Consequently, regardless of the outcome, once the TB has rendered a decision, your grievance file will be closed.
It is very disappointing to say the least, that after waiting seven years for the DGCB and the TBS to react to that original 2011 CDS direction to improve the HEA catastrophic protection offered by the CFIRP Directive, the end result was the complete deletion of the depressed market protection from the 19 April 2018 revised version. Now, not even the previous inadequate catastrophic protection is offered. Instead, it appears to be the view of the DGCB that since 95% of CAF families do not need catastrophic protection, the revised HEA provision more than adequately meets the relocation needs of most of the CAF.
Use of the “Caveat”
During his 2018 CBC interview, the DCBA indicated that the CAF would now try using a caveat in the CFIRP Directive that lets them apply to the TBS on a case-by-case basis for reimbursement of members who lose more than $30,000 in equity on the sale of their home. Upon questioning by the Committee, a DCBA staff officer identified article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive as being the caveat mentioned in the DCBA’s CBC interview (p.277).
In response to a query from the Committee regarding whether the caveat had ever been used by the CAF to support a CAF member applying for reimbursement of their catastrophic equity loss exceeding $30,000, the DCBA staff officer responded that “[n]o, the DCBA has not submitted any files to the TBS since the CFIRP was revised in April 2018” (p.277). Given the magnitude of this grievor’s $159,398.90 equity loss, I would have expected the DCBA to submit his case to the TBS for consideration and approval using the caveat as was indicated by DCBA in the afore-mentioned 2018 interview.
……
In another HEA related grievance recently seen by the Committee, the IA stated that article 2.1.01 could not be used by the CAF in response to the grievor requesting its use. This IA decision, dated 17 March 2021, appears to contradict numerous FA decisions on this same topic, wherein the FA concludes that the use of article 2.1.01 is both possible and appropriate. Again, in the case at hand, on 7 October 2022, the IA disagrees with the use of article 2.1.01 by simply quoting the article without explanation (p.124).
I consider these recent IA opinions confusing, given that just after the CFIRP HEA policy was revised on 19 April 2018, the DCBA himself stated very publicly that article 2.1.01 would be used to make such submissions to TBS to assist CAF members not adequately covered by the revised HEA policy. Regardless of the reason, this intended use of the “caveat” has undergone a 180-degree change such that the IA is unwilling to use article 2.1.01 as a means to assist any grievor, even when directed by the CDS to do so.
I fundamentally disagree with the IA position on the use of article 2.1.01 as I will explain below. In my view, it remains a viable provision under which the CAF may submit the claims of its members to the TBS for consideration and reimbursement of their catastrophic equity losses.
[66] The Review Committee reviewed the wording of the CFIRP section 2.1.01 and the section 1.4 definitions, including for exceptional circumstances, finding that this definition provided a wide degree of flexibility to accommodate unexpected circumstances. The Review Committee stated that the definition explains that exceptional circumstances are rare and should only be considered in extreme and unforeseen situations. The Review Committee noted that in the 2018 CBC interview, the DCBA explained that the CAF recognized that the new $30,000 reimbursement limit in the HEA provision would protect and cover 95% of all members on relocation. However, the DCBA also acknowledged at that time there were a few CAF members who experienced losses far exceeding $30,000, but that these occurrences were rare, extreme, and not foreseen or covered by the HEA policy. Given this, the Review Committee found that the Applicant/grievor’s loss of equity in the amount of $159,398.90 was an exceptional circumstance as described by the DCBA in 2018.
[67] In addressing the Applicant’s situation, the Committee stated:
The grievor has not provided some of robust market data and documentation that was required by the previous version of the CFIRP HEA policy in order to substantiate a depressed housing market claim (pp.211-212). However, the requirement to provide housing data to prove a depressed market has been removed from the applicable version of the CFIRP HEA policy (p.168). Equally important, the use of article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive does not rely on proving the existence of a depressed housing market. Rather, article 2.1.01 simply requires that the grievor’s expense be directly related to the relocation and that it be a truly exceptional circumstance. In that regard, as I have already found, the $159,398.90 equity loss expense suffered by the grievor is directly related to his relocation and is a result of an exceptional circumstance - a catastrophic equity loss caused by an ordered relocation.
[68] The Review Committee acknowledged that the Applicant’s circumstances differ in location from the vast majority of HEA cases seen over the last three years which were from Cold Lake where a depressed housing market, previously recognized by the TBS, persists. However, the Review Committee stated that the presence of depressed housing market is not what makes the Applicant/grievor’s home equity loss exceptional, noting recent FA precedent decisions on HEA cases directed the CMP to make a case to the TBS for all CAF members who have incurred equity losses over $30,000 since April 18, 2018, not limiting this direction to only those relocating from Cold Lake. The Review Committee found:
Given the intent expressed by the DCBA in his 2018 CBC interview that the CAF would use the “caveat” of article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive to address future catastrophic home equity losses by submitting such reimbursement claims directly to the TBS for consideration, I find that the grievor has presented a strong case that merits TBS consideration. Therefore, I also find that the CAF should fully support his submission.
[69] In her reasons, the FA addressed this by stating that there was “no question that the expense that [the Applicant] incurred is directly related to [his] relocation,”
however, she did not agree that it meets the definition of ‘exceptional circumstance,’ and stated that HEA is clearly provided for in the existing policy. As to the DCBA interview describing catastrophic financial losses, the FA states that the DCBA’s comments are merely an opinion and have not been integrated into policy. The FA states that she also disagrees with the Review Committee’s view that any equity loss above $30,000 should be considered an exceptional circumstance. She states that the TB purposefully established the HEA benefit at $30,000 in the existing policy and that:
Classifying all equity loss above $30,000 as an exceptional circumstance and seeking reimbursement under section 2.1.01 of the CAFIRP Directive is a de facto policy decision that is within the purview of the Treasury Board. I do not believe that is the intent of section 2.1.01 of the CAFIRP Directive and I retain the discretion to seek Treasury Board approval for cases that I determine to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.
[70] As to the previous CDS decisions referred to by the Review Committee, the FA states that she considers previous decisions within the grievance process to be informative, but that they do not establish policy, nor do they constrain her decision-making abilities or dictate where she may or may not exercise her discretion. Each grievance is unique and must be examined on its own merits. Therefore, while she is guided by previous decisions on similar issues, she did not consider herself to be bound by them when they are not identical to the matter at hand.
[71] While I appreciate that the DCBA’s comments have not been integrated into policy, this is precisely the problem that the Applicant raised when he states in his initial grievance submission, as acknowledged by the Review Committee, that the primary tenant of his grievance is that the current HEA limit of $30,000 is inadequate to offset losses such as the one he suffered.
[72] In my view, the FA fails entirely to grapple with this, choosing instead to introduce evidence of market conditions and focusing on those to reach a conclusion that no exceptional circumstances arise in the Applicant’s case.
[73] In that regard, the FA also fails to grapple with the Review Committee’s view that it is not necessary for the Applicant to establish a depressed real estate market in order to avail of the exceptional circumstances provision. It is true that the Applicant did explain the loss in the market value of his home based on COVID-19, the timing of his forced relocation and the impact of the oil and gas downturn. However, even if the FA did not accept this as the cause of the loss of equity, she at no point questions the fact that the loss was incurred and its quantum. Nor does she suggest that the loss was in any way the fault of the Applicant. This means that the Applicant and his family are left with a catastrophic equity loss – regardless of whether he established a depressed market – which he was not required to do under the CFIRP.
[74] Rather than addressing this reality, and the question of whether the inadequacy of the policy to address the Applicant’s catastrophic loss of equity is an exceptional circumstance in and of itself – the FA takes the view that classifying all equity losses above $30,000 would be a “de facto policy decision”
and that policy decisions are in the purview of the TB. However, by refusing to forward the Applicant’s request, the FA is depriving the TB of the opportunity to interpret its existing policy in the context of a catastrophic equity loss not based on the former ground of a depressed market and where there is no factual dispute as to the actual loss suffered or, as the FA confirmed, “[t]here is no question that the expense [the Applicant] incurred is directly related to [his] relocation.”
Or, alternatively, to consider whether relocation expenses that exceed the $30,000 HEA policy cap “are not clearly provided for in this policy”
.
[75] While the FA may retain the discretion to seek TBS approval for cases that she determines to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, the question is whether her decision refusing to do so in this instance was reasonable.
[76] The adequacy of the HEA policy was the subject of prior CDS decisions. For example, the September 2, 2020, CDS decision endorsed the concerns of the Review Committee. The decision further directed that, pending the development, implementation and addition of a mechanism to the HEA benefit to reimburse CAF members for losses that exceed $30,000 in order to address catastrophic equity loss, the CMP is to support and staff all CAF members claims seeking 100% reimbursement of such losses to the TBS for approval under CFIRP article 2.1.01. The decision added that this is to continue until the catastrophic loss of equity provision has been incorporated into the CFIRP. Finally, that decision also directed that the case be brought before the TBS with a recommendation that the greivor be afforded HEA for 100% of the financial loss incurred with respect to the sale of their home (in Cold Lake in that case).
[77] Similarly, an April 13, 2022, decision by the then CDS again acknowledged that the HEA benefit remains inadequate and again directed that the CMP ensure the request for 100% reimbursement of equity expenses be submitted to the TBS in accordance with article 2.1.01 for approval.
[78] While I agree with the FA that prior CDS decisions are not binding on her if they are factually distinct, I do not agree that supporting CAF members by sending all catastrophic equity loss claims (i.e., the 5% of HEA claims that exceed $30,000) to the TBS creates a “de facto policy”
decision. Indeed, the FA acknowledges that the CAF does not have the authority to make such policy. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how the forwarding of such claims by the CAF to the TBS to be considered by the TBS serves to create policy – given that CAF lacks policy making authority.
[79] Further, the FA’s decision does not, beyond this statement, explain why she does not agree with the approach taken by other CDS’s or how those decisions are factually distinct. She refers to the decisions identified by the Review Committee where the FA rendered decisions regarding the loss of home equity due to exceptional circumstances but states only that she “continues to believe that the HEA benefit must be improved to minimize the financial loss associated with relations required for service-related reasons.”
She declines to follow prior directions on the basis that she has determined that no exceptional circumstances exist in the Applicant’s situation. However, as I have indicated above, the Applicant has lost $189,019.40 in home equity because of the required relocation and he submitted that the HEA was inadequate to address this. In my view, the FA failed to engage with that aspect of the grievance or to explain why the substantial equity loss combined with the inadequacy of the existing HEA would not amount to an exceptional circumstance given the broadness of the definition of that term. It would then be up to the TBS to interpret and apply its own policy.
[80] As stated in the Respondent’s written submissions, the TBS has the authority to approve all or a part of the expenses incurred due to exceptional circumstances and/or expenses not provided for in the CFIRP (citing article 2.1.01). Further, that the DCBA and CAF grievance authorities do not have authority to approve expenses exceeding the provisions limits set out in the CFIRP, including expenses incurred due to exceptional circumstances (citing NDA, s 35(2)). Given that it was abundantly clear that the Applicant sought approval that exceeded the CAF’s authority and that only the TBS could offer the possibility of providing that relief, either by way of an exceptional circumstance or because catastrophic equity losses are not provided for in the CFIRP, in my view it was unreasonable for the FA not to address whether the catastrophic equity loss and the inadequacy of the existing HEA warranted referral to the TSB (Vavilov at paras 127-128).
[81] I also find that, while the FA states that the policy “merits improvement”
and is an ongoing initiative with DGCB, she appears to then minimize the impact of the Applicant’s loss by stating:
However, relocation benefits are also only one component of the total compensation package within the CAF. The total compensation and benefits package is pursued as a whole, and the CAF has seen significant improvements to many areas, including recent improvements to pay and relocation benefits. I will direct DGCB to continue to pursue amendment to the CAFRD, including modernizing the specific provisions related to the HEA benefit. However, further changes to the HEA benefit will continue to be balanced with improvements to other compensation and benefit areas.
[82] To broadly state that there have been improvements in pay and relocation benefits ignores the reality that the Applicant and his family have actually suffered a catastrophic equity loss of $189,019.40. In that regard, I note that, the only “improvement”
to the HEA, based on the record before me, was to increase the recoverable cap from $15,000 to $30,000 and even then the further $15,000 – unlike the first $15,000 – is a taxable benefit. The removal of the prior HEA benefit for equity loss beyond (then) $15,000 would not appear to be an improvement. I would also observe here that in some circumstances it may not just be the CAF member alone who suffers from this type of catastrophic equity loss. The spouses of CAF members may be employed outside the CAF and contributing, from their employment income, to the payment of mortgages on the family home and the building up of equity in that home. In such circumstances, the spouses’ contribution to the equity in the family home would also lost, and is not made up for by unspecified CAF member pay improvements. In short, catastrophic equity losses impact entire CAF families.
[83] This same minimalization of impact seems to be adopted in the FA’s response to the Applicant’s “people first”
submission:
People First. In your request to have your grievance submitted to the FA, you highlighted that “the term “people first' is often used within the CAF, as a guide to ensure our people are treated with fairness, equity, empathy, and transparency, even at the cost of personal sacrifice by those in the chain of command.” However, you feel that these words are not supported by the necessary actions. Specifically, you identify that the CAF’s approach to seek special consideration from TB, in cases such as yours when CAF members suffer a catastrophic loss through no fault of their own for service reasons, is contrary to the “people first' philosophy. You point to this again in your response to the Committee’s findings and recommendations. I understand how this may appear inconsistent with the 'people first philosophy. However, the HEA benefit is only one of many benefits that comprise the total compensation and benefits package for CAF members. Despite your dissatisfaction with the specific impact of this benefit to your situation, I am satisfied that the CAF has pursued the “people first" agenda to great success, in words and in actions. The CAF is continuously working to improve its programs for member and their families, and some of those supports involve outside authorities such as TB. Similarly, this issue is under the authority of the TB, and the CAP is not able to act independently.
[84] I do not agree with the Respondent that the FA’s engagement on this (and other) submissions demonstrates the reasonableness of her decision. This response again does not acknowledge the inadequacy of the HEA, nor does it explain how the Applicant’s $189,019.40 catastrophic equity loss is compensated for by other programs. And while the FA cannot independently revise TB policy, the FA unreasonably failed to explain why the Applicant’s grievance was not considered on the basis that the current policy is inadequate with respect to catastrophic equity losses, such as his, and why this did not warrant the forwarding of his claim to the TBS to seek its approval of payment of the claim (Vavilov at paras 127-128).
ii. Market conditions
[85] Given my finding above, I need not address the Applicant’s submissions as to whether the FA unreasonably found that the market conditions as a result of COVID-19 and the oil and gas industry do not amount to exceptional circumstances in his case.
Conclusion
[86] The FA’s finding that the Applicant has been “fairly treated in accordance with the Treasury Board instructions and the CAF relocation policies”
and, therefore, refusing the redress that he sought, is unreasonable. This is because the FA failed to consider the Applicant’s position that the existing policy is inadequate. While the FA could not change the TB policy implemented by the CAF pursuant to the CFIRP, in these circumstances she unreasonably failed to consider whether the catastrophic loss combined with the inadequacy of the existing policy is, in and of itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting its submission to the TBS for approval.
[87] I am therefore granting this application for judicial review and remitting the matter back to the FA for redetermination.
Costs
[88] When appearing before, me the parties advised that they each sought costs in the amount of $3,000 if successful, in keeping with Tarriff B. The Applicant will accordingly have his costs in the amount of $3,000.
Email this Content