Home About Us Services ↳ Canada PR Visa (Permanent Residency) ↳ Work Permit Canada ↳ LMIA — Labour Market Impact Assessment ↳ Spouse & Family Sponsorship Visa ↳ Student Visa Canada ↳ Visitor Visa ↳ Business Visa Provinces ↳ 🏙️ Ontario ↳ 🏔️ British Columbia ↳ 🌾 Alberta ↳ 🌻 Saskatchewan ↳ 🌊 Manitoba ↳ ⚓ Nova Scotia ↳ 🍁 New Brunswick ↳ 🦞 Prince Edward Island ↳ 🐟 Newfoundland & Labrador ↳ 🌊 Atlantic Immigration Program Healthcare Blog FAQ Careers Canada Contact

# 2017-130 Pay and Benefits, Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Home Equity Assistance Program (HEAP), Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2018–02–23

The grievor purchased a house under construction, as well as separately buying additional items to be added later, given the total cost was above the financing approved by her bank. Upon posting, she sold her house at a loss and applied for home equity assistance (HEA). The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) granted the difference between the purchase and sell prices. The grievor argue that the additional expenditures were required in order to conform to the building code and city by-laws, and as such, they should be included in the purchase price for the purposes of HEA calculation.

DCBA considered whether the additional items claimed by the grievor could be reimbursed under the provisions of the capital improvement benefit and found that these did not meet the intent of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) in that regard. The Initial Authority denied the grievance, contending that the purchase price of a new build, for calculation of HEA, consists solely of the costs identified in the building agreement and the costs for initial landscaping that occurs within one year of occupancy.

The Committee concluded that most of the additional expenditures claimed by the greivor could not be included as part of the purchase price of the house for HEA calculation, except for the patio stones which could be considered as initial landscaping. However, the Committee also noted that the grievor was actually reimbursed 100% of the difference between the purchase and sell prices. According to the CF IRP Directive, entitlement to 100% applies only in a depressed market, which was not the case. The grievor was only entitled to reimbursement of 80% of the loss. As her loss was not greater than the maximum entitlement of $15 000, the Committee recommended that the grievor's HEA entitlement be recalculated and that any overpayment be recovered.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending

Page details

2025-03-13

Quick Enquiry

We usually reply within a few hours
By submitting you agree to be contacted about your enquiry.
Call us Chat on WhatsApp
M

Migova AI Assistant

Online now
Hi 👋 I'm the Migova AI assistant, powered by OpenAI. Ask me about PR, study visas, work permits, LMIA, family sponsorship, provinces, or healthcare immigration to Canada.
Canada PR
Study Visa
LMIA / Work Permit