Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)

[dapaterson]

Well, off the top of my head, looking at the QR&Os:

19.09 - USE OF OUTSIDE INFLUENCE FORBIDDEN

No officer or non-commissioned member shall attempt to obtain favourable consideration on any matter relating to the member's service by the use of influence from sources outside the Canadian Forces.

(M)

19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION

(1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):

publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
use that information or document for a private purpose;
publish in any form whatever any military information or the member's views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
publish the member's opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member's superiors;
disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
(3) This article does not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian Forces.

(M)(25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)

19.37 - PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION

(1) Permission for the purposes of article 19.36 (Disclosure of Information or Opinion) may be granted by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other authority as he may designate.

(2) Permission given under paragraph (1):

does not have the effect of endorsing anything said or done by the person to whom it is given;
may not be referred to in any way; and
is given on the basis that no statement implying endorsement on behalf of the Crown will be included in what is said or done.
(M)

19.375 - COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.

(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.

(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer's discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.

(M)

19.38 - COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

No officer or non-commissioned member shall enter into direct communication with any government department other than the Department of National Defence on subjects connected with the Canadian Forces or with the member's particular duties or future employment, unless the member is authorized to do so by or under

a statute of Canada;
QR&O; or
instructions from National Defence Headquarters.
(M)

NOTE

An example of a provision of a statute of Canada within the meaning of this article is subsection 58(2) of the Official Languages Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter 31 (4th Supplement)) which authorizes members to enter into direct communications with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

(C)

 

[heavy reader]

You can also look a bit further down in the same section of the QR&O's under exceptions for mal-administration. 

The only influence I am trying to gain is fundraising to support a CDS recommended Course of Action (Judicial Inquiry). And if a soldier cannot even do that to get relief for the policies which the CDS, Ombudsman and CFGBA agree are wrong, then what hope of justice is there?

I'm just saying that for an "entitlement" which CFGBA, the CF Ombudsman and CDS agree that I am entitled to, why do I have to:

fight for 3 and 1/2 years;
lose my health;
loose my friends/social netword;
have my family suffer;
beg;
screw my career;
loose $225,000 out of pocket;
have my children know nothing but hard times;
loose all savings;
become a barrack room lawyer in my "off" hours.

Really, I never drank the coolaid but I expected that there would be some support. And now the tables are being turned on me?

I supose this is going to end one of two ways:

1. We win; or
2. We loose.

 

[heavy reader]

Hey, we already lost, so that only leaves "we win"!

 

[heavy reader]

Just found a few interesting articles about the individual public servant who is the sole and final decision maker on HEA 100% from core benefits, and who has unilaterally declared that there are no depressed markets in Canada. He is currently mentioned  for his role in the $1 Billion dollar relocation contract which is responsible to relocate all of our soldiers, sailors and airmen/women.

The news reported in November that, according to the Ottawa Sun, he was investigated for his part in bid rigging for the Royal Lepage Contract fiasco and also for running a religious charity which "declared almost $1.2 million in revenue from 2004 to 2010 ... spending $1.3 million in total but only $268,000 on charity projects", the news also reports that this charity is run from his Ottawa house, which used 80,000 of the funds.

I could go on, but the articles speak for themselves:

Have a look for yourself and decide if soldiers are being manipulated...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/11/02/charity-head-is-at-centre-of-bid-rigging-case

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/11/23/tainted-civil-servant-didnt-evaluate-new-bids

Now, I find it rather difficult to have faith that my request for 100% HEA from Core will be assessed on its merits if these news articles are correct, as my file has gone from the CDS, to DCBA to...Mr Ram Singh, Office of the Integrated Relocation Program Project Authority and spiritual leader of Sai Nilayam.  Perhaps I should start praying to him.

I realize that the press is often misleading, I will continue to follow this story and post findings on the outcomes of the case as they become available. 

I welcome your comments.

Sure called this one on Ram Singh.  See http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/08/big-players-in-envoy-contract-rigging which states :

"How did Royal LePage exploit bogus numbers to win lucrative federal contracts? Two civil servants played key roles.

David Pyett

As a Public Works employee and newly-minted contract authority in 2002, David Pyett fielded questions from bidders and published the answers for all bidders to see.

But when Envoy asked about the quantity of property management services the winning bidder would be required to supply — Envoy felt the number looked high — Pyett told them to use the inflated numbers in the request for proposal.

“This number is used purely for evaluation and is consistent for all bidders,” Pyett said.

Annis was blunt.

“By this response, Mr. Pyett has boxed himself in” when he discovered that Royal LePage had ignored the request for proposal, Annis wrote.

“His decision was to conceal (Royal LePage’s) bid of 0% to avoid any scrutiny of his failures as Contract Authority.”

Ram Singh

Treasury Board staffer and project authority Ram Singh’s job included monitoring referrals to property management services.

He knew “full well” the inflated numbers in the request for proposal were “preposterous,” Annis found.

Envoy lawyers asked Royal LePage brass if Singh had ever solicited donations for his free-spending Sai Nilayam Spiritual Organization charity.

Former Royal LePage vice-president Ray Belair said he could not recall, “the standard answer resorted to often by witnesses in trouble in cross-examination,” Annis wrote.

Despite Annis’s “uneasiness,” with the “untruthful” Singh, the judge found “insufficient evidence … to conclude what motivated Mr. Singh to provide a benefit to (Royal LePage).”

 

[heavy reader]

Judge awards $10M more to victim of ‘outrageous’ Canadian government misconduct

Here's more news from the same folks at the Treasury Board who denied all 146 of 146 applications for relocation entitlements between 2007-2010:

"OTTAWA — An Ontario Superior Court judge awarded an additional $10 million in lost profits, interest and costs to the losing bidder of a relocation contract, chastising the “reprehensible,” “outrageous” and “shocking” misconduct of the federal government for rigging the deal and trying to deceive the court.

In a hard-hitting decision, Justice Peter Annis took the extraordinary step of awarding Envoy Relocation Services full costs in its legal battle to prove bureaucrats intentionally turned a blind eye to the rigging of the 2004 contract, which helped give Royal LePage Relocation Services a monopoly on moving thousands of military, RCMP and bureaucrats to new postings.

All told, the government has been ordered to pay Envoy $40 million.

“(The) court reaction expressed in terms of its shock or intensity of feeling caused by the misconduct of the party is a factor in the award costs on an elevated scale,” Annis wrote.

“As indicated, I have no difficulty concluding that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. Indeed, I would have ordered punitive damages but for the overriding factor of concluding that such an award would have served the purpose of denunciation or deterrence.”

Annis also found this preference for RLRS to win in 2004 was also behind selection criteria that heavily weighted technical merit over price, which favoured RLRS as the incumbent with a system already up and running.

But Annis said the misconduct continued when the lawsuit began and government failed to turn over documents that would have routinely been made available in normal court procedures.

Annis argued the government deserved to chastised for concealing documents, particularly some email exchanges and the commitment forms for third-party services and their pricing, which proved to be critical evidence on which the case turned. It revealed that key bureaucrats knew that RLRS was charging for property management.

Annis said that withholding the documents, which were only turned over when he ordered them produced, were an attempt to deceive the court.

“The concealment of crucial evidence that played a major role in the outcome of the case and misled the court is grave misconduct. Moreover, this conduct was intended to conceal significant deliberate reprehensible conduct prior to litigation.”



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Judge+awards+more+victim+outrageous+Canadian+government+misconduct/8345916/story.html

 

[heavy reader]

Watch for a federal announcement on Home Equity Assistance in Monday (27 May) morning's news. The announcement will be held Monday, 27 May at 0900(L), Alderney Landing (Dartmouth) for those in the local area who wish to attend.

Ubique!

http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance

 

[TCM621]

Thanks for all the hard work you have put in for this. This can't have been easy for you personally or professionally.

 

[TCM621]

Watch for a federal announcement on Home Equity Assistance in Monday (27 May) morning's news. The announcement will be held Monday, 27 May at 0900(L), Alderney Landing (Dartmouth) for those in the local area who wish to attend.

Ubique!

http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance

DWAN link

http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201305/13052702.htm
http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/Transcripts/201305/13052703.htm

 

[heavy reader]

Let the action begin. Brauer v. The Queen

http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/applicant_s-written-submissions.pdf

 

[heavy reader]

http://cds.mil.ca/doc/guidance-directives-eng.pdf

Chief of the Defence Staff Guidance to the Canadian Armed Forces
June  20, 2013


Caring for our Members

"Our members have been the key to our success this past decade. They and their families have made extraordinary contributions and sacrifices, and they have showed remarkable dedication, strength and resilience.

Our government has recognized the contribution of members of the CAF in many ways, through an excellent framework of compensation and benefits, timely recognition and honours, and improved member and family support programs. Taking care of the well-being of our troops and their families will remain a high priority for me.

In this period of more constrained resources, there remains a need to examine the framework of member and family support programs to ensure we deliver the best outcomes and effects. We need to ensure, whether in operations or in garrison, that the support mechanisms and programs in place reflect the realities of modern military service in Canada, while maintaining the right balance between institutional and individual responsibility. In the end, it is imperative we maintain a healthy balance between investing in operational capabilities and spending resources on caring for our people and their families.

The creation of the Joint Personnel Support Units in recent years attest to our commitment to provide the best support to CAF members, veterans and their families. Despite significant investments and great progress, these units are still in their development stage, and there remains room for improvement to ensure we provide high quality and cost effective programs and services. In parallel, we have made great strides to expand access to mental health and operational stress injury programs across the CAF. Last fall, the government increased funding for treatment programs for mentally ill military personnel and veterans. We are committed to continue to invest the necessary resources to improve the mental and fitness health of all CAF members.

For the CAF to continue to be successful, our military personnel must have the education, training, skills, and experience to function in today’s environment. As well, they must be mentally and physically fit to meet the rigours of military service. We will continue to invest in developing and training our people, and in vigorously strengthening the culture of fitness in the CAF.

As we move forward, we will honour our commitment to our members and their families. At the same time, we must ensure that the framework of compensation, benefits and support programs remain sustainable in the long-term, balancing appropriately individual and institutional responsibility".

I am hopeful that this includes the entitlements to relocation benefits, such as Home Equity Assistance which has been systemically denied by Treasury Board, and which some members have been fighting for over three and a half years, to their (and their family's) detriment.

 

[heavy reader]

The attached letter from MP Robert Chisholm to MP Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board) is self explanatory.  Please take a moment to read, comment and share as you see fit.

http://www.robertchisholm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Clement-HEA-Letter-June-20130001.pdf

 

[heavy reader]

Now I'm starting to get mad.

 

[heavy reader]

I was contacted by a young troop who got their HEA decision letter and the authority maladministered the policy again! This indiv is out approx $45,000 b/c someone can't read their policy. They incorrectly denied it because the soldiers house did not fall by 20% when sold.  It is the COMMUNITY that needs to drop by 20%, not the indiv's house.  This has been clearly reflected in previous grievances in 2010.

Lets look back at this three year administrative bungle over 100% HEA loss out of core.  Here are the summaries of the grevance results at CDS level:

2010 grievances:

$45,000 loss - "The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS also agreed with the Board's systemic recommendation and he directed the DGCB to review the HEA provisions with TB with a view to reducing the impact of losses on sale 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. The CDS strongly support the grievor's case as a valid compensation as a claim against the Crown for the loss of equity not reimbursed under the CF IRP, and he forwarded the file to the DCCL"

$53,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS redirected the DGCB to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with Treasury Board with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on CF members. With respect to the grievor's request regarding interest charges, the CDS agreed with the Board that there are no provisions allowing their reimbursement."

2011 Grievance:

$88,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS directed the DGCB to prepare and transmit the grievor's HEA submission to Treasury Board (TB), in accordance with the CF IRP provisions, for evaluation of depressed market status. In the event that TB should not find in favour of this submission, the CDS invited the grievor to forward his file to DCCL for compensatory consideration as a claim against the Crown, with his full support.
Since there are now a number of grievances relating to CF members who have experienced severe losses in home equity as a result of being posted to and from the Edmonton area, the CDS reiterated his previous direction to the DGBC, as recommended by the Board in previous files, which is to continue to engage TB in vigorous negotiations. The CDS specified that the negotiations should be focused as follows:
a. to revisit the TB's determination that there were no depressed markets in Canada in 2010, including the definition of ''community''; and
b. to re-examine the CF IRP HEA provisions, in particular the 20% depressed market criteria and the $15,000.00 maximum amount reimbursable under the CF IRP core envelope."

2012 Grievances

$53,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board that the grievance be partially upheld. Since the grievor has provided considerable information that seemed to meet the depressed market criteria of article 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009 , supporting his contention that Calgary's condos market had dropped, the CDS directed that his file be sent through DCBA to TBS for determination.
As recommended by the Board in several HEA cases, and given the detrimental effect on CF members, the CDS directed CMP to review the adequacy of the CF IRP HEA provisions with TB to minimize any negative impact to CF members brought on by the exigencies of military service.

$101,500 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board that the grievance be partially upheld. Since the grievor has provided the information required by article 8.2.13 of CF IRP 2009 in support of his contention that his neighbourhood in Edmonton was a depressed market, the CDS directed that his file be sent through DCBA to TBS for determination.
As recommended by the Board in several HEA cases, and given the detrimental effect on CF members, the CDS directed DGCB to review the adequacy of the CF IRP HEA provisions with TB to minimize any negative impact to CF members brought on by the exigencies of military service."

$76,000 loss-"The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations that the grievance be denied. Section 1.3.02 of the CF IRP 2009 recognizes that there will be situations when exceptional circumstances may occur that was not already envisioned in the policy. In the grievor's case, the loss of home equity was covered by section 8.2.13 of the CF IRP 2009. In this case, the grievor did not suffer a 20% decline in housing costs as required by the disposition.
The CDS reiterated his endorsement to the Board's systemic recommendation in previous cases that the HEA provisions be reviewed."

$79,000 loss - CDS decision pending

$37,000 loss - "The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. However, the CDS agreed with the Board that the situation incurred by CF members with the application of the current Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy is egregious. Therefore, the CDS confirmed the Board's systemic recommendation submitted in previous files on this matter and directed Director General Compensation and Benefits to actively review the adequacy of CFIRP HEA provisions with Treasury Board"

$65,000 loss CDS decision pending.

Note that this one component of one policy has been under review for [b]at least three years[/b] to the detriment of all of the families above.  I have been contacted by many others who did not claim HEA as their IRP rep identified that "there are no depressed markets in Canada" so do not apply (N.B. I was also told this but applied, and grieved regardless).

I know if the CDS had been telling me to do something, and he had to tell it to me 8 times, and it still was not done after three years, I'd be out of a job! My biggest issue is that since this is a known issue, why did the 2012 policy not change.  This new soldier is being made to suffer unnecesarily until the policy is changed.

From a financial perspective:  Had TBS paid out the HEA ENTITLEMENT it would have cost about $597,000 (approx). Since they continue to deny these entitlements, it costs taxpayers at least the fol: (9 x CDS grievances, at least 3 x Claims against the crown, 2 x Judicial Reviews, all the related staff work, work time from the members and loss of productivity).  If I were a betting man, this would far exceed the approx $600,000 that the families were entitled to.

So, if TBS is trying to do their job and save taxpayers money, should they not be granting entitlements that are authorized?

Please consider helping us out with the Judical Review at http://www.gofundme.com/Home-Equity-Assistance.

 

[dapaterson]

I know if the CDS had been telling me to do something, and he had to tell it to me 8 times, and it still was not done after three years, I'd be out of a job! My biggest issue is that since this is a known issue, why did the 2012 policy not change.  This new soldier is being made to suffer unnecesarily until the policy is changed.

The CDS has no authority over this policy.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Per the National Defence Act section 12:

Treasury Board’s power to make regulations
(3) The Treasury Board may make regulations

(a) prescribing the rates and conditions of issue of pay of military judges, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services;

(b) prescribing the forfeitures and deductions to which the pay and allowances of officers and non-commissioned members are subject; and

(c) providing for any matter concerning the pay, allowances and reimbursement of expenses of officers and non-commissioned members for which the Treasury Board considers regulations are necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes or provisions of this Act.

Thus, while DGCB can discuss this with the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat, it is ultimately the responsbility of the Ministers who sit as members of the Treasury Board to direct any changes. 

 

[stokerwes]

Unless the PM directs TB to make changes, none will be made. Regardless of how many grievances are filed even if the CDS agrees with all of them. The only route for people affected by this is to take it to court. Which 99.99% of us do not have the resources to do.
I feel for everyone that has been affected by this. I think the hardest part of these situations besides the financial loss and change of lifestyle that is required because of this, is that when it comes up in conversations with people who are not in the military or who have not been posted, don't laugh it happens a lot for sailors. The majority of them think the government just bought your house at market value, which I think they tried that but it didn't work out so well, or simply paid out any loss directly to the member.
I hope that this does eventually get sorted out but I am not holding my breath. Just take my 60k loss and "suck it up". Because if I don't like I can always get out.  >

 

[heavy reader]

The CDS has no authority over this policy.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Per the National Defence Act section 12:

Thus, while DGCB can discuss this with the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat, it is ultimately the responsbility of the Ministers who sit as members of the Treasury Board to direct any changes.

To clarify, this is a DND policy and it is administered by DND. The only component which TBS has influence is that they need to denote a community as "depressed".  The policy is written by a group consisting of all stakeholders (DND, RCMP, Public Works, TBS etc). For the military, the policy is crafted and vetted through DGCB, DCBA and DRBM prior to being signed off. 

Treasury Board Secretariat has acted beyond their delegated authority under the restrictions in the FAA, that they have (unofficially)changed the policy so that it is no longer in line with the intent. They initially denied all applications without so much as reviewing them (breach of policy) and applied a blanket denial "i.e.there are no depressed markets in Canada".  After the first few grievences went through the CDS office, they changed tactics by chaning the term "community" to mean "Census Metropolitan Area". This effectively merges any depressed market of a town (aka community), with a larger metropolitan area so that all members are denied.

 

[dapaterson]

It is a policy approved by the Treasury Board and administered by DND.  It is not a policy approved by DND.

 

[heavy reader]

Unless the PM directs TB to make changes, none will be made. Regardless of how many grievances are filed even if the CDS agrees with all of them. The only route for people affected by this is to take it to court. Which 99.99% of us do not have the resources to do.
I feel for everyone that has been affected by this. I think the hardest part of these situations besides the financial loss and change of lifestyle that is required because of this, is that when it comes up in conversations with people who are not in the military or who have not been posted, don't laugh it happens a lot for sailors. The majority of them think the government just bought your house at market value, which I think they tried that but it didn't work out so well, or simply paid out any loss directly to the member.
I hope that this does eventually get sorted out but I am not holding my breath. Just take my 60k loss and "suck it up". Because if I don't like I can always get out.  >

Thanks for the comment.  One point, TBS attempted in court to dissmiss the issue as there were only a few cases being grieved.  I do agree that court is the next step and we're on it. I had hoped that it would have been obvious to the decision makers to rectify this issue, but there are likely much larger issues at play.  Such as the TBS wanting to look incompotent rather than corrupt as their the Relocation Program Authority at TBS just cost taxpayers $10,000,000 for the "reprehensible,” “outrageous” and “shocking” misconduct of the federal government for bid rigging the IRP Relocation Contract and trying to deceive the court.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Judge+awards+more+victim+outrageous+Canadian+government+misconduct/8345916/story.html)

 

[heavy reader]

The CFIRP  "represents the Treasury Board Secretariat’s approved policy for CF members on relocation of their Dependants, Household Goods and Effects ((D) HG&E)." The CFIRP has DGCB as the departmental authority.

After reading through several thousand pages of ATI returns on the development, negotiations and refinement of the 2009 CF IRP policy, it is very obvious that the CFIRP is a CF Policy, administered by the CF and that it is based on the National Joint Council Relocation Directive. It is only in a very few cases where TBS is involved (i.e. HEA 100% from core).

 

[heavy reader]

The TBS acted beyond their delegated authority as follows: Application of blanket denial of policy contravenes of the Financial Administration Act— TDI 104 states AUTHORITY — TB — DELEGATION

"The Treasury Board delegates, pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the Financial Administration Act, to the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the Board’s authority under subsection 35(2) of the National Defence Act to determine and regulate payments that may be made to Canadian Forces members, for the following specific purposes:

(a) to ensure comparability to payments that are authorized to be made to a public service employee in similar circumstances; and
(b) to make minor amendments to the unique travel and relocation benefits that may be payable to Canadian Forces members, if the Secretary is of the opinion that the amendments will not change the essential character of those benefits.

The CDS, CF Ombudsman and CFGBA have identified that by (unoficially) switching "community" (as written in the policy), with "area" (as written in the decision letters), TBS has indeed changed the essential character of the benefits. 146 of 146 individuals denied.

TBS' own media lines (July 2011) confirm that the intent of the relocation directive is to "“It is the policy of the Government of Canada to relocate an employee in the most efficient manner and at the most reasonable cost to the public. The relocation should also have the minimum detrimental effect on the employee, his or her family, and on the employing department’s operations...It is the policy of the Government of Canada to relocate an employee in the most efficient manner and at the most reasonable cost to the public. The relocation should also have the minimum detrimental effect on the employee, his or her family, and on the employing department’s operations” http://healoss.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/july-2011-tbs-media-lines.pdf

The relocation program authority at TBS did not have decision making authority delegation in place to initially make the blanket denial, and certainly did not have the delegated authority to change community to mean CMA or AREA as it changed the essential character of those benefits. This had the effect of denying all 146 HEA applications for 100% between 2007 and 2010.

C'mon folks...everyone involved knows what the right thing to do here is. Lets stop this loophole before more military families are destroyed! Lets fix this BEFORE it becomes a class action costing millions!