Home Equity Assistance

100% Home Equity Assistance in CFIRP

Posts Tagged ‘Home Equity Assistance; relocation;treasury board secretariat; military; canadian armed forces; caf; cf; cfirp

ATIP # a201200942 now available online

leave a comment »


Home Equity Assistance ATIP response is now online at https://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/a201200942.pdf for your reading pleasure. It is very interesting to have a look behind the curtain to see how our administration is (mis)managed.

Highlights include:

recommendation to apply a “Blanket policy” by DND; and

Briefing note to the Chief of Defence Staff minimizing the HEA issue by stating it only affects 1% of the troops.

Now that’s looking after the troops!


Military Families remain in limbo over relocation entitlements (5 years and counting)

leave a comment »

Military Families remain in limbo over relocation entitlements (5 years and counting).

Once more, into the fray…with Michele Drapeau Law Office

with one comment

fed crt

Once again, after winning in Federal Court, our battle has been extended by Treasury Board Secretariat. We find ourselves having to take TBS back into Federal Court to finalize our claim for Home Equity Assistance. Our family has carried this load for 5 years now, won our grievances and won in federal court, but TBS continues to SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS denying our entitlements.

The only way we can get accountability is by voting, and taking them to court.

We are once again asking for financial support to assist with this legal battle, so that the TBS will be held accountable to follow their own policies, instead of getting away with the use of Blanket Denials for hundreds of Canadian Military families. Details available at www.healoss.wordpress.com

Donations may be made at: http://www.gofundme.com/2j18gw

Thank you so much for your continued support in this quest for Government Accountability.



Military Family’s five year battle against Treasury Board preparing for round #2

leave a comment »

In 2010 we were moved by the military and entitled to “home equity assistance”. We lost $88,000 in the sale of our home. The Government has a policy which protects military members due to the amount of moves they must do (often every 2 years). Our shortest posting was 7 months.

We have been fighting for five years, and met success at every step of the way…except for Treasury Board. Each time, they change the assessment criteria, and try to wriggle out of payment using different tactics. Including breaking the law under the access to information act.

In 2014, Justice Mosely found that:

” 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 file was sent back to TBS for determination. TBS found someone to do a new report in 2014. That report was provided to a TBS panel who found that there was no entitlement.

Hon Tony Clement – President of the Treasury Board

To date, TBS has used various rationale to deny all 147 of 147 applications (between 2007-2010). These rationale are not written anywhere, nor are they inline with the policy. They are not even consistent between denials. Yes, it is true that the TBS approved two applications for HEA in Temiscaming (2008) and Port Maitland (2010), however 2008 falls under the previous policy. Further, both of these approved applications were done in 2012, at the same time as my application for HEA was working its way through TBS. I have contacted the families who were approved, and neither will speak about their file for fear of having it taken away.

” The TBS interpretation of the term “community” can only be reasonable if it can be established that it does not render the purpose of the CFIRP Directive meaningless by making it inapplicable in all but the most exceptional circumstances. From information provided to the Court by the respondent after the hearing, it appears that TBS has declared only two communities, on one occasion each, to be depressed markets in relation to the CFIRP Directive: Temiskaming, Quebec in 2008 and Port Maitland, Nova Scotia (January 2010-December 2011). The declarations in these 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 that the standard required in this instance – a decline in the housing market of greater than 20% – was not required in those cases.” Justice Mosely, Federal Court of Canada, 2014.

In my case, TBS denied my application first by declaring that “there are no depressed markets in Canada” without reviewing the files.

I grieved, and the grievance was returned “without action” as the military stated it was not grievable.

I contested this and found to be in the right. I grieved the decision to deny my HEA entitlements, and won at the Chief of Defence Staff level. He could do everything, but pay out.

The CDS directed my file was to be submitted to TBS, with his full support.

TBS denied the application as they indicated that the town of Bon Accord was not a community, and that we were considered Edmonton. I later learned that NO DATA from Bon Accord was used in their assessment. Further, I found that they used a report from 2009 to assess the housing market in 2010!

Yaprak Baltacioglu (secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada)

The military could/did not do anything. They were directed to work with TBS to resolve this “community” definition. They did not. My family was forced to take on TBS to do the military’s job. We did, and won. Bon Accord was now a community and TBS had to re-assess the file. Unfortunately, they decided to have a report crafted for them.  This report, done in 2014 is so flawed, it could not possibly constitute any type of “evidence”. However, the internal TBS board determined that our family was…ineligible. Find below some of the major issues with the TBS “report”:


So now what? Five years down the drain, immeasurable suffering and we are left with starting over with a claim against the Crown or another Judicial Review.

Wouldn’t it be great if the government would start living up to their policies, instead of treating our soldiers like enemies of the state?

Treasury Board Secretariat has misled, mistreated and manipulated for too long. The 6th of June is coming, and with it – a big surprise for TBS (and it is not a gazebo). Its going to be a great show! Time for some payback on behalf of all of those military families robbed of their futures. For all those who assisted with this injustice, you reap what you sow.

It took a single income family of seven many years to save up the equity which is being denied. We are not looking for a free ride. We would like our entitlements, as promised and we would like to see that our fellow soldiers, their families and children do not have to put up with this type of blanket denial by the Treasury Board of Canada.

Please feel free to share this information as you deem suitable.

Marcus Brauer

Standing Committee on National Defence discusses ongoing relocation denial

with one comment

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you. I hope that we’ll be able to deal with that motion later on today.

To move to another point and I’m finding that, again and again, that services that are expected to be provided to military and military families there seem to be glaring gaps occur. I want to refer you to two that come to mind as a result of recent information and recent reports.

The first one being the fact that the Universal Child Care Benefit doesn’t appear to be universal when it comes to military families. I have here a letter addressed to a military family living and serving in the United States saying that the Universal Child Care Benefit that was given is not available to that family because they’re living outside of the country and demanding $3,600. to be repaid going back to 2012. I wonder how is that that these things occur and is this something that you can actually fix? This seems to be certainly problematic.

The other one is the case of Major Marcus Brauer who has twice now been refused by the government to be paid for his $88,000 home equity assistance loss that occurred when he was forced to move from Edmonton base to Halifax despite having won a grievance through the grievance procedure and having the Chief of the Defence Staff of that time support his grievance, but being unable to pay it out. Now, that seems to me to be a direct contradiction to the notion that people who serve in the military should be entitled to get the benefits that a policy suggests that they should receive. Secondly, in the case of Major Brauer, that the grievance procedure that we have in place doesn’t seem to provide an effective remedy when a monetary payment is required because the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn’t have the authority to actually order a monetary payment.

These two things are glaring. Major Brauer has been fighting this for five years now. This case of the Universal Child Care Benefit it seems again another fact where our military members are not receiving what they should receive in terms of government benefits.

Hon. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Harris. On the first point, I’d be happy to look into that. Of course, many social benefits administered by both federal and provincial governments apply only to residents for taxation purposes. But I will certainly look into that and commit to get back to you.

On the second matter, I’m not familiar with that case. Perhaps the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff could respond.

LGen Guy R. Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the issue that’s been referred to, Major Brauer’s case, one of the dimensions of the Canadian forces that we see is the frequent moves of members of the Canadian armed forces. So in those kind of circumstances, finding the appropriate locations for your homes is always one of our biggest challenge and to find the right place for your children to go to school. In those moves, what happens of course inevitably over time is that individuals who buy into market will find that they may not be able to sell their home when they’re being posted.

So within the protection that we do have for members of the Canadian armed forces with a protection really to offer them in the case where they may not be able to recoup their full cost, there are provisions to allow a member to recoup some of that which would be involved with their overall situation in a particular sale of a home.

We can never tell somebody where they’re going to buy a house or what kind of house to buy.

Mr. Jack Harris: Vice-Chief, he won his grievance procedure and the Chief of Defence Staff has the final say and he says “yes, you should be entitled to receive your full loss of home equity”.

LGen Guy R. Thibault: In this particular case, if I may, the point would basically be is that of course he’s gone through the grievance procedure. He has still measures that are available to him in terms of judicial review which is his entitlement to do and ultimately at this point, I would just say that from the compensations and benefits that we provide for members of the Canadian armed forces, I think are recognized very widely as being a very high standard. We have a good overall compensation and benefits package for members of the forces and that ultimately when you come to each individual circumstance, you’re never going to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time.

Editors note: “But you can deny 99% of the HEA applicants and try to get away with it”. 1 of the 147 applications between 2007-2010 were approved, and these were approved after the fact in 2012″

Mme Élaine Michaud

I want to very briefly about the case that was raised by my colleague, Mr. Harris, that of Major Browar , because I do not quite understand the answer you gave , General Thibault. The situation is that Major won his grievance, he should not have to take additional action, he won, he got the support of the Chief of Staff. There you mention it always has recourse, I do not understand why he would still have to fight when he won his grievance, he should not have to take further action or use of other services. I do not understand why he has yet to fight for funds that have been granted with a favorable decision.

Editors note: “TBS is above the law and acting outside of it. No accountability and no conscience”.

tony peace


Written by Major Marcus Brauer

May 21, 2015 at 10:00

Please Share-This is the Home Equity Losses for CAF members from Access to Information

leave a comment »


Here is the link to the ATIP. Looks like someone has been telling stories…

TBS decision based on erroneous report and “manipulated” data

leave a comment »

13 May 2015 House of Commons

Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP):

“Mr. Speaker, last week Major Marcus Brauer was informed that his claim for home equity assistance benefits has been rejected. It is devastating news to Major Brauer and his family.

This Canadian Forces member lost $88,000 on the sale of his home when he was ordered to relocate. The Conservatives have spent almost as much money fighting with Major Brauer as it would have cost to simply honour the commitment.

Why do the men and women in uniform in our country have to fight the government tooth and nail for the benefits they deserve?”

Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

“Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the House is that in compliance with the Federal Court’s May 2014 order, there was an independent, impartial review that was conducted. Of course we relied on the advice of that independent third party expert in the conclusion that in fact the market was not depressed”.


Find the link below, some of the issues in the “independent third party expert”. These issues were not addressed. The Treasury Board figures that

Ltr. to G. Hector – 12-Dec-14

You make the call.

%d bloggers like this: