Home Equity Assistance

100% Home Equity Assistance in CFIRP

CFIRP decision # 2010-012

leave a comment »

2010-012 (F&R Date: 2010-09-02)


The Board examined the Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy under section 8.2.13 of the Canadian Forces (CF) Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), which was applicable to members on posting who sold their homes at a loss in relation to the original purchase price.  Section 8.2.13 contains a $15,000 maximum on compensation for losses on sale where the home is not located in a depressed market area.  (Treasury Board Secretariat has defined a depressed market area as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%, and in such an area, section 8.2.13 authorizes compensation for 100% of the loss.)  The Board found that, under modern market conditions, in light of the $15,000 maximum on compensation and 20% market drop required for a depressed market designation, it was likely that CF members in certain cases would continue to incur unreasonable losses on the sale of their homes on posting ($30,000 in this case).  The Board found that permitting losses of this magnitude did not achieve the aim of relocating members with a minimum detrimental effect and was not in accordance with the purposes of the IRP policy[1].


The Board recommended that the CDS direct that the HEA policy applicable to CF members selling their homes upon posting be re-examined with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level.

Final Authority Decision

The CDS also agreed with the Board’s systemic recommendation and he directed DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale of a residence to a reasonable and minimally detrimental level. One issue for review is the definition of “community”: using a large metropolitain area as a basis for defining a community would average out large discrepancies amongst the communities that make up the larger area.  For example, Ottawa is an amalgamated city that includes several previously existing cities (Vanier and Kanata), each of which consists of identifiable areas considered as communities .

[1] Note: Using area in place of community is not authorized delegated authority to TBS as it changes the intent of the policy (as noted in FAA).


Written by Major Marcus Brauer

February 22, 2015 at 15:03

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: