Today was one of the most difficult days so far. Submitted my application for compassionate status (a career ender) and I am coming to the conclusion that no matter how much I sell, how hard I work or how many jobs I take, I cannot repay the money. The most frustrating part, is that it is not my fault. I’ve been carrying the HEA debt since 2010 and using all finances to buy time. Since it has been five years and TBS continues to delay and deny, I am left with little else to do but declare. Why did I not declare earlier? Here are a few reasons:
Loss of perfect credit score for 7 years;
resultant inability to relocate in future, inability to loan or co-sign loans for 5
school aged children (jeopardizing their future);
places the focus of blame on the individual, not the CAF/TBS;
subjected to repossessions and harassing collection agencies;
further personal and family humiliation;
it is against my families beliefs to pass debt onto the taxpayer; and
added stressors to an already stressful situation.
All this time, work and effort – at what price? The Treasury Board of Canada has worn me down, destroyed my life and the lives of my family.
At what price?
In November 2014, the TBS received a report which they requested, in order to assess the housing market in Edmonton CMA and Bon Accord, Alberta between Jun 2007-May 2010. These are the dates that I lived in Bon Accord. This report was funded by your tax dollars.
Below is my response to this “market analysis” which has been provided to TBS.
05 December 2014
REPRESENTATION – MAJOR MARCUS BRAUER
CONTINUING HOME EQUITY ASSISTANCE DENIAL APPROACHING YEAR 5
Good afternoon Mr XXXXXXX:
- As requested, please find below an initial analysis of the Residential Market Conditions (hereafter the “report”) (prepared for PWGSC by XXXXXX) on 21 November 2014.
- The report by XXXXXX, should have no impact on the decision of declaring Bon Accord a depressed market. As stated in the CFIRP (2009) the Market Analysis to be assessed is to be provided by the CF Member and the realtor. Further, the Federal Court of Canada has stated that:
- “The applicant’s situation seems to me to be precisely the type of problem the CFIRP Directive was meant to remedy as indicated in the views expressed by the Grievance Board and the CDS. As interpreted by TBS, however, “CF members are subject to […] absorbing an equity loss” upon “relocation akin to a “forced relocation””. This cannot be what the Government of Canada intended for its military personnel”;
- “I find that the TBS decision was unreasonable in the sense that it was not justified and was outside the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in light of the facts and the law”.
- The report is found to be, at best, inconclusive and at worst –intentionally misleading. Significant problems include the intentional MLS data being manipulated to get the results in the report. This is reminiscent to the findings of the Federal Court Judge Justice Mosely, who reviewed the previous TBS market analysis for Bon Accord as follows:
- “In my view, TBS relied on irrelevant, post-dated and unsubstantiated information”.
- The purpose of the report as stated by PWGSC in the Statement of Work (SOW) was not the same as the author’s objective. As below, the report did not provide any conclusions nor conduct the study with the same objective as required by PWGSC:
- From SOW: “The stated objective of the study (in the SOW) is a third-party assessment of the market conditions in order to establish if a given location can be considered a “depressed market”;
- Report states “The objective of this study is to determine whether or not Depressed Market conditions were experienced during the study period. A Depressed Market is said to exist where there has been a decline in residential Market Values of twenty percent or more”; and
- The criteria provided to the author (Report Addendum A) contains the requirements for a depressed market survey. These criteria are markedly different than the criteria listed in the 2009 CFIRP and therefore set the author up for failure in achieving the stated objective(s).
- Throughout the report, there was inconsistent use of terminology. This is one of the major dis-satisfiers with the overall 2009 HEA policy. Specifically:
- “Edmonton CMA” is used interchangeably with the terms “Edmonton Region”, “full Edmonton CMA”, “Edmonton CMA Universe” although they have different meanings and geographic areas depending on the data (Statistics Canada and EREB do not have overlapping geographic areas for CMA). Further, the geographic area for Edm CMA has changed according to StatsCan;
- Variance: Variance is defined as: “A measure of overall variation in a set of data that represents the average squared difference between each value in the data set and the mean of all values”. The report appears to use the term to describe “difference”;
- Sale price: Also used is “adjusted sale price” which is not defined, and implies that the data has been changed in some respect;
- Significant (i.e. statistical significance): Refers to a statistical test result that leads to the rejection of the implicit or explicit hypothesis of independence between two or more variables. The author indiscriminately uses the term significant to imply “trustworthy, or of significant importance”;
- Days on Market, Marketing time: are used interchangeably without being defined; and
- Note that the author uses “Market Values”, which, according to CFIRP 2009 is defined as: “The value of a residence at the time of its sale.”
- Throughout the report, the most basic conventions of research or analysis were not evident. These can lead to issues with interpretation, verification or duplication of the calculations or results. It certainly affects the credibility of the conclusions. Some of the gross errors include:
- None of the diagrams, tables, charts or datum labelled;
- the majority of charts and diagrams show only year (assume annual averages),
- some diagrams do not include the report’s mandated dates at all (i.e. 2007 and 2010 not represented;
- the report’s data sources were not referenced in any diagrams, tables, charts or addenda;
- data supposedly from MLS was only provided for Bon Accord, not Edm CMA;
- boundaries of CMA’s and their sub-components change often. MLS data does not make the same changes and is therefore, not representative of reflecting the housing market of a CMA;
- Statistics from government agencies were not referenced, nor were source data tables or dates obtained provided;
- The report and the 2009 CFIRP (TBS) have different definitions of depressed market: “Depressed Market is said to exist where there has been a decline in residential Market Values of twenty percent or more”. Vs.: “Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.” The author and the TBS are using different definitions of “Depressed Market”;
- comparisons do not measure “like against like”. By not using similar house types, the Edm CMA “Total Residential Market” data includes duplexes and townhouses. One report cannot satisfy the market assessment unless it analyses the market(s) for each style of house, as required by CFIRP and the applicant//realtor to provide to DCBA/TBS. CFIRP 2009 states that “similar type homes” are to be compared for HEA calculations;
- throughout the document, there are many direct relationships stated without any proof of cause and effect. The cause and effect must be either demonstrated, or referenced. Otherwise it is solely an unqualified opinion.
- the report identifies the geographical area of the Edm CMA incorrectly according to Statistics Canada;
- MLS data does not use the same geographical boundaries as the EREB or the CMA, therefore the CMA conclusions are ineffective;
- throughout the report, different criteria were used to assess the % loss. These included average price per sq ft, sold price per sq m and average sale price. No standard unit of measure is used within the report to identify a change in price;
- Annual sale values are used throughout the report. As the SOR requires Jun 2007-May 2010 information, no annual data will capture changes over these timeframes (i.e. Jun 2007 market compared to May 2010 market); and
- multiple errors, omissions, mis-calculations and misclassifications are identified within the notes of the attached PDF file;
Efficacy of the Report
- While the report did not achieve the objectives outlined in the SOW, it did attempt to provide a “market analysis” of Edmonton CMA and Bon Accord. There were serious issues with the methods and analysis used by the author:
- the report did not use the same methodology for both Edm CMA and Bon Accord Market Analysis, although the author (incorrectly) attempted to draw conclusions by comparing the two distinct geographical areas;
- the report included only data from Bon Accord, and not Edm CMA;
Bon Accord analysis:
- the report excluded some MLS data from the Bon Accord Analysis;
- the missing Bon Accord MLS data was not presented,
- rationale for removing the MLS data from Bon Accord was not identified;
- The impact on the “missing data” was not identified not stated;
- The report did not identify the number of homes sold during the Jun 07-May 10 timeframe, a definite indicator of a depressed market. In the Bon Accord community, there was only one BLEVL type homes sold, which represents 100% of the market between those two dates. Note also that the FCC identified that “30 houses had sold in Bon Accord in 2007 and 40 in 2008, only 6 had been sold as of May 2010”
- the Edm CMA “Total Residential Market” data includes duplexes and townhouses, whereas the Bon Accord data does not;
Edm CMA analysis: Much of the Edm CMA analysis is captured in comments on the attached PDF file and is beyond the scope of this report;
- Generally accepted research principles conduct research in a specific order to minimize error or influence of the author. This sequence is for the investigator to: Follow the objective, develop indicators, measure, study and conclude. This report appears to deny there are depressed markets, provide measures then manipulate the MLS data. It never achieves it’s secondary stated outcome of “identifying five benchmarks of the real estate market”.
- The TBS is to base their decision on the Market Analysis provided by the CAF and his/her realtor to determine a depressed market in accordance with the CFIRP. Conducting an additional analysis only demonstrates the desire to limit/deny applications for HEA. As noted in the initial HEA application, the Community of Bon Accord’s housing market was calculated by a realtor (as specified in the CFIRP).
- The realtor identified that the Bon Accord housing market fell by 23.11% (undisputed by TBS in Federal Court). This evidence was un-contradicted in the FCC between Jun 2007 and May 2010.
- A 47 page report which self identifies its conclusions as “speculative”, “interpretive”, “not guaranteed for accuracy” speak towards its validity. When conclusions are drawn from an analysis which is self stated as statistically insignificant, those results should not be relied upon. Specifically: “It (average home sale prices in Bon Accord) does not represent the variance from June 2007-May 2010 as there is insufficient sales in the Town of Bon Accord to draw a statistically relevant conclusion”, goes on to conclude in the report summary that “depressed market conditions” were not experienced in the Edmonton CMA or the Town of Bon Accord”.
- The report compiled for the TBS is not valid and it should not be relied upon to make any determination on market conditions.
- The report identifies that it has different objectives and criteria than requested in the Statement of Work;
- As the 20% criteria was proven in the initial 2010 application, uncontested in Federal Court and deemed not necessary in the only two successful HEA cases in Canada , it is unclear why another report was commissioned where it cannot be used in making the decision of a depressed market;
- By using the MLS data provided in the report, and using all of the homes of similar type (BLEVL) bought between Jun 2007 and May 2010, with a sample size of 100% of the Bon Accord market, bought in those months, the housing market fell by 21.7%. This statistic is in agreement with the Royal Lepage assessment provided in the initial application date 10 May 2010, which found the Bon Accord housing market to have gone down by 23.11%. This report provides multiple percentages, but does not provide one percentage of housing market decrease for Bon Accord as requested in the SOW.
22. Considering the history of this matter and the length of time I been attempting to obtain a remedy, I would ask that this matter be dealt with expediently. As the TBS has confirmed through providing 100% HEA in Temiscaming, QC and Yarmouth, NS without a market analysis confirming 20% loss, and considering that the 20% factor is not the only factor to be considered, I would ask that this application for entitlements be dealt with post-haste in order for me to attempt to regain some of my life, career and family. Of note, I contacted the members who won their HEA application in Temiscaming and Yarmouth, and they both were terrified that they were contacted, and advised that they were told they cannot talk about it. I may be reached at the number below if you require any clarification/information.
25 Wheatstone Heights, Dartmouth
Nova Scotia, B2Y 4E1
Appendix: e-copy of Report with notes
cc: CAF Ombudsman’s Office
cc: Hon Robert Chisholm
cc: Undisclosed recipients (4)
 The foundation of my review is based on a masters level courses obtained in 2010-2012. Managerial Epidemiology (HESA 5320.03), is “designed for health administrators, not researchers. The course has three components: assessing the health status of a population using existing data; using Epi-Info for statistical analysis of associations (relative risk, odds ratio, chi-square test, confidence intervals, Mantel-Haenszel analysis, multiple logistic regression); and clinical guideline monitoring. Throughout the course, recurring themes are: understanding the meaning of numbers, assessing validity, and ascertaining causation, including the concepts of confounding and effect modification”. Further my masters level thesis was an 10 year trend analysis of blue cross payments by the Canadian Forces, which involved many hundreds of thousands of calculations. I have significant experience in assessing research and conducting analysis of data. Several courses in research methodology and master level statistics courses as well.
 FCC decision para 64 at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc488/2014fc488.pdf
 FCC decision para 68 at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc488/2014fc488.pdf
 As found in the Reports Statement of Work, pp.41
 As noted in an email from PWGSC (3 Dec 2014) “In this instance, the report you reference was a low dollar value sole source contract, as an update of previous work to specifically address the Bon Accord market in the context of an earlier study of the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) Edmonton market. This original work was contracted after competitive bids were solicited from qualified suppliers. Details of the deliverables required and the original statement of work for the CMA Edmonton study were included in the addenda of the report.”
 Note: This report is supposed to be provided by the CF Member and their realtor (Royal Lepage) which was provided in the initial application.
 Report p 43
 Confirmed with EREB and MLS
 “A” implying singular.
 Report pp.6
 As evidenced by Statscan in their 2011 report at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92f0009x/92f0009x2011001-eng.pdf
 In accordance with the Materials on the Statistics Canada website were produced and/or compiled by Statistics Canada for the purpose of providing Canadians with access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. The information is being used against Canadians by the Government. Not being used for the purpose for which it was gathered, nor is it being referenced.
 2009 CFIRP
 B.A. is a town, while the Edm CMA remains poorly defined. Even if the Edm CMA was defined (using either MLS, EREB or Statscan geographical boundaries), it is akin to making a comparison between your spleen (Bon Accord) and your body (Edm CMA).
 Report pp.16
 CFIRP 2009 s. 8.2.13 para 4(b)
 Edmonton CMA is currently contains the following areas: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=117159&CVD=117161&CPV=835&CST=01012011&CLV=2&MLV=3
 As determined in the FCC decision “It appears that no consideration was given to the differences between Edmonton, a major urban centre with a diversified economy and population of about 1 million and Bon Accord, a small town linked to the oil industry”.
 Edm CMA had no adjustments of MLS data due to physical characteristics of the properties, while Bon Accord had the selling prices in 2010 greatly manipulated (adjusted sale price) for that same reason. (report pp.21). This had an impact on the calculation.
 Report pp.16
 Report pp 1
 CFIRP 2009
 Report pp.32
 FCC decision para 65 at http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc488/2014fc488.pdf
 “The declarations in these that the standard required in this instance – a decline in the housing market of greater than 20% – was not required in those cases” two cases contained no finding that the entire housing market had declined by 20% or more. Rather they dealt with the general economic conditions in both communities and the personal circumstances of the individuals concerned. Thus it appears
The intent of this site is to combine our knowledge, resources and skills. As I am new to blogging etc, I would invite everyone to become involved and make this forum a focal point for our cause.
All members have been given editor access and so there is opportunity for everyone to change the site and make it better/easier to access.
I look forward to working on developing this site as our one point of focus for exchange of information and historical record. Once we have it developed, we will share it with our contacts and friends to spread the word. We need to take advantage of the recent press activity and I would like to have this up and running in a week or so. All assistance is greatly appreciated.
Job dissatisfaction and repeated moves to new locations across the country are the top reasons behind Canadian Forces personnel leaving the military, according to a report obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.
The examination of what prompts staff to leave comes as the Canadian Forces faces a shortage of soldiers and difficulties recruiting new personnel.
The briefing on retention of military staff, provided last year to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance, outlined the top reasons for those in uniform to leave.
A desire for “geographic stability” was the main reason, followed by “job dissatisfaction,” according to the briefing obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law. Other reasons included the need for more pay and benefits as well as military personnel having issues with senior or unit level leadership.
Having to deploy on military missions overseas was only mentioned by a small number of those surveyed as a reason for leaving.
Military personnel privately say that the upheaval caused by moving families regularly, as well as the isolated nature of some bases and the lack of job opportunities for spouses, make staying in uniform difficult.
Department of National Defence spokeswoman Suzanne Parker said the military is in the process of developing a revitalized strategy for retaining staff.
“It will ensure that retaining qualified and competent members in uniform is a fundamental aspect of how we manage our people,” Parker stated Monday in an email. “”We will review and adjust or develop policies, programs and activities as required that reflect the evolving needs of our members and their families while ensuring that we maintain our operational focus.”
It is not their choice where they have to go, so to they shouldn’t be paying for it and that’s where we see the unfairness that needs to be addressed
In January, a DND report tabled in the Commons outlined problems retaining staff and recruiting. The military has said it needs more than 4,000 new recruits each year just to offset attrition and keep 68,000 full-time troops in uniform.
But the January report noted that in 2015 the Forces was facing a shortage of nearly 1,900 regular force members and 5,300 reservists. That was because of higher than expected attrition and “challenges in meeting recruiting quotas” for reservists.
Military leaders have talked in the past about reducing the number of times personnel must relocate.
In 2013, then Canadian Forces ombudsman Pierre Daigle also raised the issue, noting his concern about the stress, financial or otherwise, being placed on military families by such moves.
Daigle recommended the military rethink how often it needed to transfer soldiers and uproot their families as part of its “operational requirements.” Moving staff every year is expensive for taxpayers and can impose major personal and financial hardships on military families, he noted.
“Why do we move people so much and how many times do we have to move?” Daigle said in a 2013 interview with the Citizen. “Yes, they need operational capacity and people have to be moved, but when they are moved for operational requirements, it is not their choice where they have to go, so to they shouldn’t be paying for it and that’s where we see the unfairness that needs to be addressed.”
Scott Brison urged to take fresh look at real-estate dispute with soldiers Group of military members suing Ottawa over tens of thousands of dollars lost during moves By Richard Cuthbertson, CBC News Posted: Dec 30, 2015 12:03 PM AT Last Updated: Dec 30, 2015
A Canadian soldier at CFB Halifax is urging Canada’s new Treasury Board president, Liberal MP Scott Brison, to take a fresh look at a dispute involving dozens of military members who suffered steep financial losses when forced to sell their homes.
The request comes as federal government lawyers are pushing ahead with their efforts to have the courts toss out a proposed class-action lawsuit launched on behalf of those members.
The members claim they are entitled to compensation under a federal home-equity assistance program after they were posted to new locations and sold their homes during local housing market downturns. Many lost tens of thousands of dollars.
Under the rules, a military member can receive 100 per cent compensation if they sell in a so-called depressed market. The dispute revolves around what is considered a depressed market and the lawsuit claims the Treasury Board, which ultimately controls compensation, is refusing to pay.
But as the proposed class action continues to grind through the courts, some of those involved are hoping the new Liberal government — and King-Hants MP Brison — will change the course.
“I would hope that Mr. Brison would look at the evidence before him,” says Maj. Marcus Brauer, a father of five who lost $88,000 when forced to sell his home in Bon Accord, Alta., after the military posted him to Halifax. He was only compensated $15,000.
“Instead of making soldiers go into court to get their entitlements, that they would follow the applicable policy in the way that it was intended so that soldiers wouldn’t have to suffer hardship when they’re posted every two to three years.”
Brauer has waged his own court battle against the federal government. Last year, a Federal Court judge ruled the Treasury Board was unreasonable in denying Brauer compensation, sending his case back to be considered a second time. Justice Richard Mosley even ordered the federal government pay Brauer’s legal costs.
Brauer, however, will be back in court again on Jan. 16 after the Treasury Board once again rejected his claims for compensation earlier this year.
Also making its way through the courts is a proposed class action lawsuit, launched by Master Warrant Officer Neil Dodsworth, who now serves at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick..
He lost $72,000 when forced to sell his home in Morinville, Alta., after he was posted from CFB Edmonton to CFB Kingston by the Canadian Forces in 2009.
In October, a Federal Court judge turned down a bid by lawyers with the federal Justice Department, who said the proposed class action should be struck down because the policy is clear and there were no false statements made to personnel.
But the federal government quietly filed for an appeal last month and continues seek an order to strike the lawsuit.
“The way this is going, I believe they are just trying to … get more time,” Dodsworth said in an interview from his home in Oromocto, N.B. “In my view they’re just seeing if anyone bows out of this case.”
A spokesperson for the Treasury Board says it will not comment on the case as it is before the courts.
Recent Access to Information shows that the GOC knew the costs of living up to the military relocation policy, and did everything possible to delay and deny it. Details and briefing notes available here.