Federal Court Grants Reimbursement for Military Relocation Financial Losses

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260713 Docket: T-5225-25 Citation: 2026 FC 938 Ottawa, Ontario, July 13, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME_1]: [NAME_2] Applicant and CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME_2] (Retired), seeks judicial review of the decision of General M.A.J. Carignan, [NAME_4] [CDS], acting as the Final Authority [[NAME_6]] in the [NAME_7] [[NAME_8]] grievance process. [ 2 ] The Applicant grieved the decision of the Director [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] [NAME_11] [[NAME_12]] denying his request for additional reimbursement of his significant financial losses incurred with respect to the sale of his home in St. Albert, Alberta, when he was posted by the [NAME_8] to Ottawa, Ontario. The grievance was referred to the Director [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] [[NAME_13]] for determination as the initial authority [[NAME_14]]. The [NAME_14] denied the grievance. The matter was next referred to the [NAME_15] [[NAME_16]] which recommended that [NAME_6] afford the Applicant, the [NAME_18], redress by directing that his request for 100% reimbursement of his loss in equity be submitted to the [NAME_19] [[NAME_19]] for approval. However, [NAME_6] denied the grievance, found that the loss was not an exceptional circumstance and refused to recommend the Applicant’s file to the [NAME_19] for consideration. [ 3 ] The Applicant at all levels of his grievance and in preparing the written submission for this judicial review was self-represented. He was represented by counsel only at the actual hearing of this judicial review. [ 4 ] For the following reasons, I am granting this application. Background [ 5 ] Before providing a more detailed factual background and describing the decision under review, it is perhaps helpful to first provide some situational context by describing the legislative framework for [NAME_8] grievances and the [NAME_8] relocation policy. The most relevant provisions are also found in Appendix A of these reasons. i. Legislative and Regulatory Framework for [NAME_8] [ 6 ] As set out by the Respondent, the statutory and regulatory framework for the grievance process is established by sections 29 to 29.15 of the National [NAME_5] Act , RSC 1985, c N-5 [ NDA ], Chapter 7 of Volume I of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders [QR&O], and is implemented by [NAME_5] [DAOD] 2017-0 “Military Grievances” and DAOD 2017-1 “Military Grievance Process,” which were in effect at the relevant time. [ 7 ] The [NAME_8] grievance process provides for two levels of review and decisions. The [NAME_14] conducts the first review, followed by [NAME_6], which is the CDS or her delegate (QR&O, s 7.15 and 7.16; NDA , s 29.11). Certain grievances, including those relating to “pay, allowances and other financial [NAME_10],” must be referred to [NAME_16] for a recommendation prior to being considered and determined by [NAME_6] ( NDA , s 29.12(1); QR&O, s 7.21(c)). [ 8 ] [NAME_16] is an arms-length legal body mandated under the NDA to investigate and review grievances referred to it by [NAME_6] ( NDA , s 29.2(1)). [NAME_16] is required to provide its findings and recommendations in writing to [NAME_6] and to the [NAME_8] member who submitted the grievance ( NDA , s 29.2(1)). [NAME_6] is not bound by [NAME_16]’s findings and recommendations but must provide reasons if it does not act on them ( NDA , s 29.13). [NAME_6] must conduct an impartial, de novo review, which cures any fairness-related shortcomings in the original decision-making process (DAOD 2017-1, s 8.22; [NAME_20] v Canada (National [NAME_5]) , 2012 FCA 181 at paras 43-45). ii. [NAME_8] [ 9 ] The [NAME_7], Integrated Relocation Program [CFIRP], effective April 19, 2018, to March 31, 2021, is the version of the CFIRP that is relevant to this matter. The CFIRP states that it represents the [NAME_19]’s [[NAME_21]] approved policy for [NAME_8] members on relocation (section 1.1.01). The CFIRP sets out the [NAME_10] and applicable funding available to [NAME_8] members when they are required by the [NAME_8] to relocate. [ 10 ] [NAME_10] paid under the CFIRP are comprised of “Core,” “Custom,” and “Personalized” components. These components of [NAME_10] are distinct but are interdependent sets of entitlements (CFIRP, s 1.2.01). [NAME_10] are described as those essential to relocation; [NAME_10] are described as enhancements to a relocation; and, [NAME_10] are described as non-essential, but attributable to relocation (CFIRP, s 1.2.02; see also, s 1.2.03 to 1.2.05). [ 11 ] Section 8.2.13 of the CFIRP sets out the Home Equity Assistance [HEA]. It states: 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA) A member to whom this Directive applies is entitled to be reimbursed for any financial loss incurred in relation to the sale of their principal residence if: • the closing date for the sale is on or after 19 April 2018; and • the sale price is less than the purchase price paid by the member. The reimbursable amount is equivalent to the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price minus any reduction in the sale price that is identified in the agreement of purchase of sale and attributable to anything in the principal residence that required repair or replacement. Despite the definition of purchase price in Section 1.04, in relation to a principal residence that was a new home construction, the purchase price is the sum of the costs: • identified in the Building Agreement, and • incurred during the first year of occupancy of the residence for initial landscaping if those costs were not identified in the Building Agreement. The reimbursable amount will be paid as follows: Core benefit 80% of the reimbursable amount or $30,000, whichever is less. Custom benefit The reimbursable amount minus the amount paid under the Core Benefit. Personalized benefit The reimbursable amount minus the amounts paid under the [NAME_10]. NOTE Payments for Home Equity Assistance may have income tax implications. Members who receive this benefit should confirm the taxation rules applicable to their circumstances. ([NAME_21] amended, 19 April 2018) [ 12 ] The total amount for which a member can be reimbursed is subject to amounts available in each of the three types of [NAME_10]. These amounts are calculated with a personalized formula set out at section 1.2 of the CFIRP. [ 13 ] In cases where a [NAME_8] member has incurred reasonable expenses resulting from exceptional circumstances or demands that do not appear to be covered by the relocation policy, or, they do not agree with the application or the interpretation of the CFIRP policy by the service provider, they may submit requests for clarification or adjudication to the [NAME_12] (CFIRP, s 1.3.02). “Exceptional circumstances” are defined as including “but are not limited to, weather conditions, operational requirements or travel to remote areas. They are rare and shall only be considered in cases of extreme and unforeseen situations” (CFIRP, s 1.3.02). iii. Background leading up to the decision under review [ 14 ] The Applicant joined the [NAME_8] in 1989 as a Medical Officer. In 2012 he was posted to Alberta where he entered into a building agreement for a home in St. Albert in the amount of $1,024,398.90. In May 2020, the Applicant was posted to Ottawa. On June 2, 2020, his home was appraised for $965,000. On June 11, 2020, he signed an agreement to list his St. Albert home for sale for $939,000. Over the next approximately 10 months, the Applicant lowered the listing price of his home several times. On March 12, 2021, the Applicant sold his home for $865,000. [ 15 ] The Applicant was eligible for relocation [NAME_10] under the CFIRP. Based on the purchase price of his home ($1,024,398.90), plus eligible landscaping costs ($29,620.50) less the sale price of his home ($865,000) the Applicant suffered a significant home equity loss in the amount of $189,019.40. [ 16 ] The Applicant received an HEA reimbursement of $43,650.39 from his Core, Custom and Personal funding envelopes. As only the first $15,000 of the $30,000 core funding is a tax-free reimbursement, his actual (net) recovery was $28,313.84. [ 17 ] In July 2021, the Applicant submitted a request to the [NAME_12] for additional [NAME_10]. The [NAME_12] described the request as made in consideration of the real estate market as well as the personal impact of taxable relocation [NAME_10]. The [NAME_12] denied the Applicant’s request in a decision dated July 31, 2021, finding that he did not have the authority to override the CFIRP policy limits prescribed for [NAME_10]. [ 18 ] In October 2021, the Applicant grieved the [NAME_12]’s decision, the primary tenant of his grievance being that the HEA is inadequate in circumstances such as his. He described the circumstances resulting in his significant loss of equity and, by way of redress, sought an additional $166,085.06. This amount was the loss of equity of $194,398.90 (calculated using an estimated $35,000 for landscaping costs) less the net HEA of $28,313.84, representing the amount that he was out of pocket for the loss of equity on his house due to his posting to Ottawa. [ 19 ] The grievance was referred for determination to the [NAME_13], as the [NAME_14] under the [NAME_8] grievance process. In a decision dated June 20, 2022, the [NAME_14] determined the Applicant had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies and regulations and denied his grievance. [ 20 ] At the Applicant’s request, the grievance was submitted to [NAME_6] for consideration in July 2022. In accordance with subsection 29.12(1) of the NDA , and section 7.21 of the QR&O , the grievance was first referred to [NAME_16] for review and to provide findings and recommendations to [NAME_6]. [ 21 ] In a 24-page report dated November 23, 2023, [NAME_16] found the Applicant to be aggrieved. [NAME_16] recommended that [NAME_6] afford the [NAME_18] redress by directing that his request for 100% reimbursement of his loss of equity expense be submitted to the [NAME_19] for approval with the full support of the [NAME_8]. [ 22 ] [NAME_16] provided background information pertaining to the ongoing concern with the adequacy of the HEA. [ 23 ] [NAME_16] also referred to a 2018 CBC interview with the [NAME_12], speaking as the subject matter expert for [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] issues in the [NAME_8]. He confirmed that 95% of all [NAME_8] relocations do not result in a catastrophic loss of family wealth and that those [NAME_22] are fully protected by the current CFIRP HEA provisions. [NAME_16] found that the 2018 [NAME_12] statement was factual evidence that the relatively small number of [NAME_22] who do experience catastrophic loss of their equity on the sale of their homes due to relocation reflect truly exceptional circumstances. [NAME_16] found that the Applicant’s loss of equity in the amount of $159,398.90 (this amount does not include landscaping costs) is an exceptional circumstance as described by the [NAME_12] in 2018. Decision Under Review [ 24 ] In a decision dated December 1, 2025, [NAME_6] denied the Applicant’s request that he be reimbursed for the entirety of the financial loss he incurred upon the sale of his home in Alberta and his relocation to Ottawa. [NAME_6] determined the Applicant was treated fairly in accordance with the applicable policies and instructions, namely the [NAME_8] relocation policies and [NAME_21] instructions. [NAME_6] also refused to recommend his file for consideration by the [NAME_19]. [ 25 ] [NAME_6] states that the issue before her was whether the Applicant was entitled to receive 100% HEA reimbursement for the equity that he lost with the sale of his home in St. Albert resulting from his relocation to Ottawa. [NAME_6] acknowledged [NAME_16]’s analysis as thorough and comprehensive, but did not agree with a number of its findings. [ 26 ] Relying upon documentary evidence, including a February 2021 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report and statistics from the [COMPANY_23], [NAME_6] found there was “remarkable stability” in the average price of housing in Edmonton in the 2018 to 2021 period. [NAME_6] therefore concluded that the decrease in value of the Applicant’s home was not uniquely or primarily due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the broader real estate market did not decrease in an exceptional manner, including as a result of factors such as the price of oil and gas. [ 27 ] Because she found that the equity loss sustained by the Applicant upon relocation was not an “exceptional circumstance,” [NAME_6] held that section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP did not apply in the Applicant’s situation and decided not to refer his file to the [NAME_19] for further consideration. [NAME_6] also held that she retains the discretion to seek [NAME_19] approval for cases [NAME_6] determines to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. [ 28 ] [NAME_6] further acknowledged the 2018 statement made by the [NAME_12], cited by [NAME_16], regarding the inadequacy of the HEA benefit for [NAME_8] members who have sustained catastrophic losses above $30,000, but found that the [NAME_12]’s opinion did not constitute policy, nor reflect the opinion of the [NAME_8]. [NAME_6] disagreed with [NAME_16]’s finding that the Applicant’s equity loss meets the requirements for a submission to the [NAME_19] under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP. [NAME_6] also disagreed with [NAME_16]’s recommendation that any equity loss over $30,000 should be considered an exceptional circumstance and held that this would amount to a “de facto policy decision,” where only the [NAME_21] has authority to make such a decision. Issue and Standard of Review [ 29 ] Having considered the parties’ submissions as to the issues, I find that they can be reframed as follows: [NAME_6] have the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to determine whether there were “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of the CFIRP? Is [NAME_6]’s decision reasonable? [ 30 ] With respect to the standard of review, the Applicant submits that the presumptive standard of review is reasonableness. Although in his written submissions he also submitted the question of whether [NAME_6] acted unreasonably and outside of her jurisdiction raises a procedural fairness issue, when appearing before me his counsel confirmed that the reasonableness standard applies to all of the Applicant’s submissions. [ 31 ] I agree with the parties that the standard of review on the merits of [NAME_6]’s decision is reasonableness ( [NAME_24] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024 FC 142 at para 40). On judicial review, the Court “asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME_25] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME_25] ] at para 99). [NAME_6] have the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to determine whether there were “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of the CFIRP? Applicant’s position [ 32 ] The Applicant submits this application for judicial review should be granted on the sole basis that [NAME_6] acted unreasonably and ultra vires her jurisdiction in refusing to refer his request for full reimbursement to the [NAME_19]. The Applicant notes that section 8.2.13 of the CFIRP allows for the reimbursement of $30,000 in situations of home equity loss upon relocation. However, he submits that should the equity loss incurred by a [NAME_8] member upon relocation exceed $30,000, then it is the [NAME_19] and not the [NAME_8] who holds exclusive authority to determine whether “exceptional circumstances” under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP exist so as to warrant full reimbursement. The Applicant submits that, in finding his situation did not constitute an “exceptional circumstance,” [NAME_6] therefore improperly stepped into the shoes of the [NAME_19] and acted outside of her jurisdiction. [ 33 ] The Applicant also argues that [NAME_6] unreasonably, and outside of her jurisdiction, refused to refer his request for reimbursement to the [NAME_19] and acted contrary to a CDS decision dated September 2, 2020, directing the Chief of Military Personnel [[NAME_26]] to ensure that a case is made to the [NAME_19] for all [NAME_8] members who have incurred “catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000” . Respondent’s position [ 34 ] The Respondent submits it was open to [NAME_6] to conclude that she holds the authority and discretion to determine whether a matter constitutes “exceptional circumstances” and, if such circumstances exist, whether to subsequently refer it to the [NAME_19] for consideration and approval under section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP. The Respondent submits [NAME_6] reasonably concluded that the [NAME_19]’s authority is predicated on meeting the requirement of “exceptional circumstances” or circumstances “not clearly provided for in [the CFIRP]” , and that the determination of whether exceptional circumstances existed was to be made before the matter is submitted to the [NAME_19] for approval. The Respondent argues that in implicitly finding she has authority to determine whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, [NAME_6] was interpreting her authority within the CFIRP and is therefore entitled to deference (citing [NAME_25] at para 67). [ 35 ] The Respondent further argues that the Applicant’s reliance on the September 2020 CDS decision is misplaced. That decision is a direction to the [NAME_26] to engage with the [NAME_19] and develop a new, catastrophic equity loss mechanism and that pending the implementation of such a mechanism, the [NAME_26] is to support [NAME_8] members. No such mechanism has been developed. Further, this was an internal direction not reflected in the CFIRP and does not fetter [NAME_6]’s discretion under the CFIRP. Analysis [ 36 ] As a preliminary point, I note that although other issues were addressed in [NAME_6]’s decision, both parties agree that the only matter at issue before me is [NAME_6]’s treatment of the HEA. [ 37 ] It is also not in dispute that [NAME_6] has the authority to consider grievances related to relocation [NAME_10]. [ 38 ] Section 29.11 of the NDA states that the CDS “is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.” A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding subject only to judicial review by this Court ( NDA , s 29.15). [ 39 ] Reimbursement for expenses arising out of a [NAME_8] member’s service is determined and regulated by the [NAME_21] ( NDA , s 35): [NAME_19] to establish 35 (1) The rates and conditions of issue of pay of officers and non-commissioned members, other than military judges, shall be established by the [NAME_19]. Reimbursements and allowances (2) The payments that may be made to officers and non-commissioned members by way of reimbursement for travel or other expenses and by way of allowances in respect of expenses and conditions arising out of their service shall be determined and regulated by the [NAME_19]. [ 40 ] Pursuant to section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP, the authorities of the [NAME_19] and others, with respect to relocation expenses, is set out: Section 2.1 Authorities 2.1.01 Authorities [NAME_19] ([NAME_19]), has authority to: • approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the [NAME_7] member’s relocation but are either an exceptional circumstance or are not clearly provided for in this policy. Grievance Authorities and Director of [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] [NAME_11] ([NAME_12]): • If a [NAME_7] member has not received a benefit because the relevant circumstances , although not dissimilar to, were different from the circumstances established, then the appropriate grievance authority for relocation [NAME_10] or [NAME_12] may, if he or she considers it would be equitable and consistent with the purpose of the CFIRP, approve the payment of all or part of that benefit. Director Relocation Business Management (DRBM) has the authority to: • approve reimbursement or recovery of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the [NAME_7] Member’s relocation that are provided for in this policy or as authorized by [NAME_19] or [NAME_12]. Base Commanders (BComd) or the [NAME_11] Officers (BAdmO) have the authority to: • render decisions on entitlements specified within the CFIRP policy. ([NAME_21] amended 16 September 2014) [ 41 ] Moreover, albeit in a different factual context, this Court has previously held that the CDS acts within its statutory and regulatory jurisdiction when considering and denying the redress of a grievance ( [NAME_27] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FC 100 at para 46). [ 42 ] In this matter [NAME_6] prefaced her HEA analysis by stating: that pursuant to the NDA, Section 35 (Pay and Allowances), the [NAME_19] ([NAME_21]) has sole authority to determine and regulate reimbursement for relocation, travel or other expenses arising out of service for [NAME_8] members. This authority is carried out by way of the CFIRP Directive. As such, I am unable to make exceptions to the policy. [ 43 ] [NAME_6] then considered whether the Applicant had established exceptional circumstances such that his request should be directed to the [NAME_19]. Having concluded that he did not, [NAME_6] refused to recommend the request for consideration by the [NAME_19]. [ 44 ] On that point, in his grievance submission to the [NAME_14] the Applicant stated that the primary tenet of his grievance was that the HEA is inadequate in situations such as his. Among other submissions, he stated that he was forced to sell his home during an unprecedented real estate depression caused by the combined effects of the collapse of the Alberta oil and gas industry and the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The [NAME_12] did not address exceptional circumstances. It found that it did not have the authority to override the [NAME_21]’s “pre-set criteria,” referencing CFIRP section 8.2.13. [ 45 ] In his July 19, 2022, request for review by [NAME_6], the Applicant stated that he accepted that his reimbursement was consistent with current policy, but requested that the consideration also take into account the extraordinary circumstances affecting house owners, particularly in Alberta, who were forced to move by the [NAME_8] during annual posting season [APS] 2020; the inadequacy of the [NAME_21] policy in covering losses to the degree suffered due to these previously unpredictable circumstances; and, the inequity in terms of how different [NAME_8] peers were treated in terms of being forced to move during APS 2020. [ 46 ] He further submitted that the term “people first” is often used within the [NAME_8] as a guide to ensure its people are treated with fairness, equity, empathy, and transparency. However, that all-too-frequently there is a failure to back these words with action. He submitted that the case he presented was a legitimate grievance that was deserving of careful, and compassionate consideration as well as the backing of the [NAME_8] to approach the [NAME_21] and seek special consideration for those who, through no fault of their own, suffered devastating losses in their service to the crown due to extenuating and unprecedented circumstances. He, and other [NAME_8] members, have accepted a personal cost and risk in service of the crown, including in places such as Afghanistan. He asked that the [NAME_8] accept the responsibility to put people first , argue for the [NAME_21] to modify policy to account for extraordinary circumstances that have occurred and are likely to recur in the future, and right the wrong on behalf of himself and the many other [NAME_8] members like him. He made a similar submission following [NAME_16] report. [ 47 ] [NAME_6] did not expressly address the question of her authority to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances exist. This may be because this was not an issue that was put to her by the Applicant. However, as is clear from [NAME_6]’s decision, her focus was on whether or not exceptional circumstances existed. In that regard, [NAME_6] relied on the [NAME_28] reports and statistics from the [COMPANY_23] which were disclosed to the Applicant on November 20, 2025, and who responded to the same on November 24, 2025. [ 48 ] Unfortunately, in this judicial review, neither party delved into the statutory interpretation of section 35 of the NDA or section 2.1.01 of the CFIRP or provided jurisprudence addressing these provisions. On its face, I cannot agree with the Applicant that section 2.1.01, which states that the [NAME_19] has authority to “ approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the [NAME_7] member’s relocation but are either an exceptional circumstance or are not clearly provided for in this policy ” , serves to reserve exclusive authority to the [NAME_19] to determine what are, or are not, exceptional circumstances in any given case. Rather, the [NAME_19] reserves to itself the exclusive authority to approve reimbursement for any such expenses. As to section 35 of the NDA , this confirms that it is the [NAME_19] that establishes the payments that can be made to [NAME_8] members as reimbursement for expenses and by way of allowances in respect of expenses and conditions arising out of their service. Those payments of reimbursements are reflected in the CFIRP which is administered by the [NAME_8]. Thus, the [NAME_8] may make a determination of whether or not an expense is an exceptional circumstance, the reimbursement of which is to be determined by the [NAME_19]. [ 49 ] I accept the Respondent’s submission that [NAME_6] implicitly found that she had the authority to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances exist, based on the CFIRP and her role as the final decision-maker in the grievance process. [ 50 ] On that point, I also note that this Court has previously recognized, given the highly specialized nature of the grievance process in the military context, that the CDS acting as [NAME_6] in the [NAME_8] grievance process is entitled to a high degree of deference and must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation ( [NAME_29] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2020 FC 1155 at para 31). [ 51 ] I find that [NAME_6] did not exceed her jurisdiction in making that determination. Is [NAME_6]’s decision reasonable? Applicant’s position [ 52 ] The Applicant argues that [NAME_6] acted contrary to a CDS decision dated September 2, 2020, directing the [NAME_26] to ensure that a case is made to the [NAME_19] for all [NAME_8] members who have incurred “catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000” . He submits that [NAME_6] should have similarly forwarded his request for full reimbursement to the [NAME_19]. [ 53 ] In the alternative, the Applicant submits [NAME_6]’s decision is unreasonable because the evidence placed before [NAME_6] demonstrates clear and unambiguous “exceptional circumstances” warranting the matter’s referral to the [NAME_19]. Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic itself, leading to unpredictable and unforeseen societal consequences; pandemic-imposed constraints on market and real estate activity, including general buyer reluctance, restrictions on in-person showings and open houses, travel restrictions, reduced mobility and migration to Alberta, and reduced [NAME_8] posting activity into Canadian Forces Base [CFB] Edmonton limiting likely buyers in the St. Albert sub-market; and, the Edmonton-area housing market being depressed at the time he sold his home due to a depressed oil and gas industry in Alberta. Respondent’s position [ 54 ] The Respondent submits [NAME_6]’s conclusion that the Applicant did not establish “exceptional circumstances” existed in his case is justified in light of the facts and law bearing upon it. [NAME_6] found that the COVID-19 pandemic was neither a negative nor an exceptional circumstance impacting the real estate market in Edmonton, and that the broader market did not decrease exceptionally due to external factors including the price of oil in Alberta. The Respondent contends that the evidence supported those findings and the fact that another conclusion could be drawn based on the record before [NAME_6] does not undermine the reasonableness of [NAME_6]’s decision. [ 55 ] The Respondent argues that [NAME_6] engaged with the Applicant’s submissions, including those regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on market conditions, but then reasonably relied on “high-quality, reputable evidence” in finding the Applicant’s financial losses did not stem from exceptional circumstances. The Respondent submits [NAME_6] was not required to refer to every piece of evidence (citing [NAME_30] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at para 16) and that whether another conclusion could be drawn based on the evidence before her does not undermine the reasonableness of [NAME_6]’s decision. The Respondent also argues that [NAME_6]’s decision is reasonable having regard to the policy governing her decision-making, and notes that where [NAME_6] did not follow [NAME_16]’s findings and recommendations, she provided reasons for her departure – as required by section 29.13 of the NDA – and clearly explained her rationale for doing so. Analysis i. Refusal to forward the request [ 56 ] In his written argument, the Applicant argues that [NAME_6] failed to follow prior CDS decisions in refusing to forward his request for reimbursement to the [NAME_19]. While the Applicant made this submission with respect to the issue of [NAME_6]’s authority, in my view, this is really a question of the reasonableness of [NAME_6]’s decision. [ 57 ] As it is put in the Respondent’s written submissions, the [NAME_8] may only grant the provisional limit imposed by the HEA benefit. As such, the Applicant grieved the decision not to refer his case to the [NAME_19], which has the authority to approve reimbursements for up to 100% of losses. [ 58 ] The Applicant argues that, by refusing to refer his request for reimbursement to the [NAME_19], the CDS acted contrary to a directive of her own office dated September 2, 2020, and, therefore, acted unreasonably. [ 59 ] As indicated above, [NAME_6] was not required to accept the findings and recommendations of [NAME_16] but, if rejecting them, she had to explain why. [ 60 ] [NAME_16] report provided background information about the longstanding and ongoing problem of [NAME_22] suffering catastrophic equity losses when they must sell their homes because they have been relocated by the [NAME_8]. [ 61 ] In its analysis, [NAME_16] stated that over the past three years it has seen a rising number of grievances from [NAME_8] members who have experienced severe financial hardship as a result of massive equity losses due to their relocation. Many of these grievances hinge on the revision to the CFIRP, which became effective April 19, 2018 (the version at issue in the matter before me), and which removed the entitlement to receive 100% HEA reimbursement of lost equity from the Core envelope for homes sold in a depressed market. [NAME_16] stated that the vast majority of the grievances it has seen have originated from personnel posted from Cold Lake, Alberta. In this matter, the [NAME_18] (Applicant) relocated from St. Albert, Alberta, a community just outside of Edmonton and nearby CFB Edmonton. Although each grievance is unique, all grievors have experienced significant financial hardships as a result of their ordered relocation. [ 62 ] [NAME_16] stated: The Catastrophic Loss of Equity The extent of the equity loss suffered by the [NAME_18] is truly exceptional as I will explain. There can be no doubt that it is directly related to his military relocation. To fully appreciate the magnitude of this injustice, it is necessary to review the long history that the [NAME_8] and the [NAME_17] share on this important issue. During his May 2018 interview with the CBC reporter following the 19 April 2018 revision of the HEA policy, the [NAME_12] made four very important points. He first explained that the new HEA policy now protects 95% of all [NAME_8] members who experience home equity losses due to posting. He then went on to acknowledge that, in certain locations such as Cold Lake, members can often lose money on the sale of their homes through no fault of their own. He further explained that some of those losses greatly exceeded the $30,000 HEA limit and were catastrophic to the [NAME_8] members affected. Finally, he stated that the CDS was aware of the situation and desires a solution but that, to date, no solution has been found (pp.294-295). Background - Catastrophic Loss of Equity The [NAME_17] has reviewed numerous grievance files over the past eleven years dealing with the gross inadequacy of the CFIRP HEA provisions in the face of [NAME_22] suffering catastrophic loss of equity selling their homes on posting. Annex A to this report contains a growing summary of relevant dates and financial details extracted from those cases, as well as select comments from previous [NAME_17] Findings and Recommendations reports and from several important CDS grievance decisions. Annex B to this report focuses on the financial impact experienced by grievors since amendments to the HEA benefit came into effect on 19 April 2018. In the 2018 [NAME_12]/CBC interview, the [NAME_12], speaking as the subject matter expert for [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] issues in the [NAME_8], confirmed that fully 95% of all [NAME_8] relocations do not result in a catastrophic loss of family wealth and that those [NAME_22] are fully protected by the current CFIRP HEA provisions. I find that the 2018 [NAME_12] statement is factual evidence that the relatively small number of [NAME_22] who do experience catastrophic loss of their equity on the sale of their homes due to relocation reflect truly exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately, being considered exceptional offers no comfort to those [NAME_22] that the [NAME_12] admits are not properly protected by the new HEA provisions. These recent grievance files confirm that [NAME_8] members remain highly vulnerable to extreme and debilitating financial losses as a result of being forced to sell their homes in bad markets due to military relocations. In reviewing the data compiled in Annex A, I note that the highest home equity loss observed to date by the [NAME_17] is a loss of $249,000. The average equity loss computes as $83,877, representing an average 23.2% loss of equity for those [NAME_22]. Although the majority of affected families were posted to Cold Lake, hard hit by downturns in the oil and gas industry, similar losses have sometimes occurred in other housing markets across Canada as well. I am especially concerned by the data compiled in Annex B of the more recent losses experienced in Cold Lake since the removal of the depressed market clause, where the average equity loss now computes to $103,208.03. The average out-of-pocket loss experienced by these members after receiving the maximum allowable HEA benefit has grown to approximately $66,000 before taxation is even considered. Numerous grievors have explained how such losses have negatively affected their lives and wellbeing, impacted their housing opportunities at their new postings and required loans, or the spending of RRSP savings, to pay off their existing mortgages. This recent data makes it clear that the five percent of [NAME_22] not adequately protected by the current HEA policy are continuing to suffer greatly, and that urgent action is required to relieve that suffering. [ 63 ] [NAME_16] then went on to describe its prior view as included in an article published in 2011; the [NAME_8]’s view as expressed in a letter to the [NAME_31] in 2016 expressing similar concerns about the HEA program; and, the ongoing views and concerns expressed by the [NAME_3] 4 [NAME_32] and [NAME_3] 1 Canadian Air Division in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020. [NAME_16] set out various of these communications, I include here by way of example, the 2019 communication of the [NAME_33] describing the situation as follows: 2. … Depressed Market Status ceased to exist as a policy tool as of 1 April 2018, leaving no clear recourse for members whose purchase and sale dates do not fit within defined parameters, including all those who sell after 1 April 2018. Many of my members are facing severe, and in some cases catastrophic financial losses, some have lost and others anticipate losing over $100,000 in equity. The benefit change that increased Home Equity Assistance (HEA) from $15,000 to $30,000 is a welcome improvement, however, this support is reduced due to taxable status of the second $15,000, and when combined with equity losses well in excess of $50,000 members are still suffering crippling financial impacts. [ 64 ] [NAME_16] also described subsequent correspondence which speaks to concerns about the mental health of the members, as well as the posting avoidance and attrition problems being caused by the lack of adequate [NAME_9] and recommending further review of the HEA policy. [ 65 ] Notably, [NAME_16] next described the CDS views which I reproduce below at length: [NAME_4] A shows that the office of the CDS has consistently agreed with the [NAME_17] that the CFIRP HEA benefit remained inadequate, and that [NAME_22] should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses simply because they were serving in the [NAME_8]. The CDS responded to the [NAME_17]’s previous recommendations by directing that the [NAME_13], in cooperation with the [NAME_19], review the CFIRP HEA provisions in order to improve the catastrophic loss protection, and to minimize the negative impacts on [NAME_22]. The following CDS direction first appeared in a 2011 CDS grievance decision in response to a systemic recommendation from the [NAME_17]: Systemic Issue. However, [the [NAME_17]] was also of the opinion that the current HEA policy is inadequate because it does not contain a discretionary mechanism to deal with undue financial hardship in unique situations, such as yours. [The [NAME_17]] believes that the lack of such a mechanism disregards the aim of the National Joint Council Relocation [NJC IRP] Directive to “relocate an employee in the most efficient fashion … while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and his/her family …”. It is for this reason, therefore, that I have already directed [NAME_13] to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with [NAME_21] with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on [NAME_7] members. As noted by [the [NAME_17]], there is an email on file from [NAME_12] that states “Given other more pressing priorities and [NAME_19] conviction that there simply isn’t a big enough problem to justify a submission to [NAME_21] for a policy change, we have not pursued this vigorously.” I am well aware of the good work [NAME_12] conducts on behalf of all members of the [NAME_7]. However, we cannot allow [NAME_19] to determine what constitutes “a big enough problem” in the [NAME_7]. While it is true that members are not obligated to purchase a home, our members often do not have the housing options [NAME_19] may believe are accessible to them. … As the relocation of members is done according to the exigencies of the [NAME_7], our members often find themselves without the luxury of waiting out a market downturn to sell or obtain a roof over their heads. Further, members should retain the same opportunities available to all Canadians to purchase a home. It is for this reason, therefore, that I have already directed [NAME_13] to review the adequacy of the HEA provisions with [NAME_21] with respect to ensuring the aim of minimizing any negative effect on [NAME_7] members. I further note that Canada’s [NAME_5], Secure, Engaged - places great emphasis on enhancing support to military families that undergo relocation, stating that military families are “… integral to our military success”. The support to [NAME_8] personnel and their families is described as follows (pp.289-290): Delivering on our commitment to our people and their families is a sacred obligation and requires a comprehensive suite of initiatives that cover all aspects of how we recruit, lead, train and care for sailors, soldiers, [NAME_34] and men, as well as all those who support them. As Canada and Canadians change, so too must our approach to our people. To ensure they and their families thrive, we will continue to incorporate progressive best practices into our approach. Throughout, our actions must be underpinned by a sense of compassion and responsibility towards the women and men who wear the uniform, and their loved ones. Similarly, the NJC IRP Directive states that the intent of the government in forming relocation policy is as follows (p.281): 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1.2.1 It is the policy of the government that in any relocation, the aim shall be to relocate an employee in the most efficient fashion, at the most reasonable cost to the public while having a minimum detrimental effect on the employee and his/her family and on departmental operations. [emphasis added] The CDS grievance decisions noted in Annex A have steadfastly reflected his fundamental core belief that all [NAME_22] deserve protection from these devastating and life destroying financial losses brought on by the exigencies of military service. Over the past three years, the CDS has rendered decisions in over 17 HEA grievance files similar to the present case. On 2 September 2020, the CDS rendered his decision on [NAME_17] file 2019-302. The CDS endorsed the following [NAME_17] for this file: • that the Final Authority direct the [NAME_26] to immediately engage with the [NAME_19] in order to develop a catastrophic equity loss mechanism that would reimburse [NAME_8] members who suffer equity losses greater than $30,000; and • pending the development and implementation of such an addition to the CFIRP HEA benefit, that the [NAME_26] be directed to support and staff all [NAME_8] member claims seeking 100% reimbursement of catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000 to [NAME_19] for approval under the CFIRP article 2.1.01 and that such staffing continue until the catastrophic loss of equity provision has been incorporated into the CFIRP. In that decision, the CDS wrote the following: As I have said in previous decisions, it remains my belief that the Federal Government and the [NAME_8] have an obligation to protect members and their families from such devastating financial losses brought on by the exigencies of military service. With that in mind, I will direct that your case be brought before the [NAME_21] with a recommendation that you be afforded HEA for 100% of the financial loss incurred with the sale of your home in Cold Lake. Final Authority Direction. In reviewing your file, I noted that your case is not unique. As explained by the [NAME_17], the current CFIRP HEA policy does not address the harm being caused to the small segment of [NAME_8] members who suffer catastrophic loss of home equity on relocation. For those individuals and their families, the HEA benefit remains inadequate as they should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses as a result of them serving in the [NAME_8]. I am, therefore, directing [NAME_26], in cooperation with the [NAME_21], to review CFIRP HEA provisions with an aim of implementing some form of catastrophic loss protection and, in doing so, minimizing the negative impact on [NAME_22]. This should include a discretionary mechanism to deal with undue financial hardship in unique situations like the one you find yourself in. In the interim, I also direct [NAME_26], in accordance with CFIRP article 2.1.01 (Authorities), to ensure that a case is made to the [NAME_21] for all [NAME_8] members who have incurred catastrophic loss of equity over $30,000 since 18 April 2018. Some 19 months later, on 13 April 2022, the current CDS (at the time, the Acting CDS) reaffirmed this direction in his most recent decision on [NAME_17] no. 2021-151,5 writing: Final Authority Direction Update . In reviewing your file, I noted that your case is not unique. The current HEA policy has removed the ability to apply for 100% reimbursement for homes sold in depressed market areas and, in doing so, fails to address the harm being caused to [NAME_8] members who suffer a catastrophic loss of home equity upon relocation. The HEA benefit remains inadequate as they should not be expected to absorb such severe home equity losses as a result of service in the [NAME_8]. Based on previous direction on this matter, [NAME_21] and the Director [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] [NAME_11] ([NAME_12]) have been in consultation to discuss the situation affecting members who sold their residences at a loss in Cold Lake. As a result, [NAME_21] directed [NAME_12] to initiate a market study assessing the periods of 2014-2018 and 2018-2020. The study remains ongoing. Barring this, and anticipating limited flexibility to address the lack of a catastrophic loss clause, I would offer that- in future - should losses over $30K be anticipated by a [NAME_8] member, that a member’s branch leadership should be mandated to explore and implement alternate APS courses of action to negate the potential for long-term financial impact to our [NAME_22], to include remote virtual work potential as well as possible posting cancellations. These means, while not optimal, are within the [NAME_8]’s capacity to influence. This said, I direct [NAME_26] to investigate a mechanism through which to implement this [NAME_8]-centric approach quickly, be that through Canadian Forces General Messages or similar order to ensure rapid, consistent implementation across the force. Implementation . I direct [NAME_26] to ensure your request for 100% reimbursement of equity expense be submitted to the [NAME_21], in accordance with CFIRP article 2.1.01, for approval with the full support of the [NAME_8]. Notwithstanding my direction, the [NAME_21] is external to the [NAME_8] and there is no guarantee of success in your case. Additionally, it is important to note that the future [NAME_21] decision on your file is not grievable. Consequently, regardless of the outcome, once the [NAME_21] has rendered a decision, your grievance file will be closed. It is very disappointing to say the least, that after waiting seven years for the [NAME_13] and the [NAME_19] to react to that original 2011 CDS direction to improve the HEA catastrophic protection offered by the CFIRP Directive, the end result was the complete deletion of the depressed market protection from the 19 April 2018 revised version. Now, not even the previous inadequate catastrophic protection is offered. Instead, it appears to be the view of the [NAME_13] that since 95% of [NAME_22] do not need catastrophic protection, the revised HEA provision more than adequately meets the relocation needs of most of the [NAME_8]. Use of the “Caveat” During his 2018 CBC interview, the [NAME_12] indicated that the [NAME_8] would now try using a caveat in the CFIRP Directive that lets them apply to the [NAME_19] on a case-by-case basis for reimbursement of members who lose more than $30,000 in equity on the sale of their home. Upon questioning by the [NAME_17], a [NAME_12] staff officer identified article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive as being the caveat mentioned in the [NAME_12]’s CBC interview (p.277). In response to a query from the [NAME_17] regarding whether the caveat had ever been used by the [NAME_8] to support a [NAME_8] member applying for reimbursement of their catastrophic equity loss exceeding $30,000, the [NAME_12] staff officer responded that “[n]o, the [NAME_12] has not submitted any files to the [NAME_19] since the CFIRP was revised in April 2018” (p.277). Given the magnitude of this [NAME_18]’s $159,398.90 equity loss, I would have expected the [NAME_12] to submit his case to the [NAME_19] for consideration and approval using the caveat as was indicated by [NAME_12] in the afore-mentioned 2018 interview. …… In another HEA related grievance recently seen by the [NAME_17], the [NAME_14] stated that article 2.1.01 could not be used by the [NAME_8] in response to the [NAME_18] requesting its use. This [NAME_14] decision, dated 17 March 2021, appears to contradict numerous [NAME_6] decisions on this same topic, wherein [NAME_6] concludes that the use of article 2.1.01 is both possible and appropriate. Again, in the case at hand, on 7 October 2022, the [NAME_14] disagrees with the use of article 2.1.01 by simply quoting the article without explanation (p.124). I consider these recent [NAME_14] opinions confusing, given that just after the CFIRP HEA policy was revised on 19 April 2018, the [NAME_12] himself stated very publicly that article 2.1.01 would be used to make such submissions to [NAME_19] to assist [NAME_8] members not adequately covered by the revised HEA policy. Regardless of the reason, this intended use of the “caveat” has undergone a 180-degree change such that the [NAME_14] is unwilling to use article 2.1.01 as a means to assist any [NAME_18], even when directed by the CDS to do so. I fundamentally disagree with the [NAME_14] position on the use of article 2.1.01 as I will explain below. In my view, it remains a viable provision under which the [NAME_8] may submit the claims of its members to the [NAME_19] for consideration and reimbursement of their catastrophic equity losses. [ 66 ] [NAME_16] reviewed the wording of the CFIRP section 2.1.01 and the section 1.4 definitions, including for exceptional circumstances, finding that this definition provided a wide degree of flexibility to accommodate unexpected circumstances. [NAME_16] stated that the definition explains that exceptional circumstances are rare and should only be considered in extreme and unforeseen situations. [NAME_16] noted that in the 2018 CBC interview, the [NAME_12] explained that the [NAME_8] recognized that the new $30,000 reimbursement limit in the HEA provision would protect and cover 95% of all members on relocation. However, the [NAME_12] also acknowledged at that time there were a few [NAME_8] members who experienced losses far exceeding $30,000, but that these occurrences were rare, extreme, and not foreseen or covered by the HEA policy. Given this, [NAME_16] found that the Applicant/[NAME_18]’s loss of equity in the amount of $159,398.90 was an exceptional circumstance as described by the [NAME_12] in 2018. [ 67 ] In addressing the Applicant’s situation, the [NAME_17] stated: The [NAME_18] has not provided some of robust market data and documentation that was required by the previous version of the CFIRP HEA policy in order to substantiate a depressed housing market claim (pp.211-212). However, the requirement to provide housing data to prove a depressed market has been removed from the applicable version of the CFIRP HEA policy (p.168). Equally important, the use of article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive does not rely on proving the existence of a depressed housing market. Rather, article 2.1.01 simply requires that the [NAME_18]’s expense be directly related to the relocation and that it be a truly exceptional circumstance. In that regard, as I have already found, the $159,398.90 equity loss expense suffered by the [NAME_18] is directly related to his relocation and is a result of an exceptional circumstance - a catastrophic equity loss caused by an ordered relocation. [ 68 ] [NAME_16] acknowledged that the Applicant’s circumstances differ in location from the vast majority of HEA cases seen over the last three years which were from Cold Lake where a depressed housing market, previously recognized by the [NAME_19], persists. However, [NAME_16] stated that the presence of depressed housing market is not what makes the Applicant/[NAME_18]’s home equity loss exceptional, noting recent [NAME_6] precedent decisions on HEA cases directed the [NAME_26] to make a case to the [NAME_19] for all [NAME_8] members who have incurred equity losses over $30,000 since April 18, 2018, not limiting this direction to only those relocating from Cold Lake. [NAME_16] found: Given the intent expressed by the [NAME_12] in his 2018 CBC interview that the [NAME_8] would use the “caveat” of article 2.1.01 of the CFIRP Directive to address future catastrophic home equity losses by submitting such reimbursement claims directly to the [NAME_19] for consideration, I find that the [NAME_18] has presented a strong case that merits [NAME_19] consideration. Therefore, I also find that the [NAME_8] should fully support his submission. [ 69 ] In her reasons, [NAME_6] addressed this by stating that there was “no question that the expense that [the Applicant] incurred is directly related to [his] relocation,” however, she did not agree that it meets the definition of ‘exceptional circumstance,’ and stated that HEA is clearly provided for in the existing policy. As to the [NAME_12] interview describing catastrophic financial losses, [NAME_6] states that the [NAME_12]’s comments are merely an opinion and have not been integrated into policy. [NAME_6] states that she also disagrees with [NAME_16]’s view that any equity loss above $30,000 should be considered an exceptional circumstance. She states that the [NAME_21] purposefully established the HEA benefit at $30,000 in the existing policy and that: Classifying all equity loss above $30,000 as an exceptional circumstance and seeking reimbursement under section 2.1.01 of the CAFIRP Directive is a de facto policy decision that is within the purview of the [NAME_19]. I do not believe that is the intent of section 2.1.01 of the CAFIRP Directive and I retain the discretion to seek [NAME_19] approval for cases that I determine to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. [ 70 ] As to the previous CDS decisions referred to by [NAME_16], [NAME_6] states that she considers previous decisions within the grievance process to be informative, but that they do not establish policy, nor do they constrain her decision-making abilities or dictate where she may or may not exercise her discretion. Each grievance is unique and must be examined on its own merits. Therefore, while she is guided by previous decisions on similar issues, she did not consider herself to be bound by them when they are not identical to the matter at hand. [ 71 ] While I appreciate that the [NAME_12]’s comments have not been integrated into policy, this is precisely the problem that the Applicant raised when he states in his initial grievance submission, as acknowledged by [NAME_16], that the primary tenant of his grievance is that the current HEA limit of $30,000 is inadequate to offset losses such as the one he suffered. [ 72 ] In my view, [NAME_6] fails entirely to grapple with this, choosing instead to introduce evidence of market conditions and focusing on those to reach a conclusion that no exceptional circumstances arise in the Applicant’s case. [ 73 ] In that regard, [NAME_6] also fails to grapple with [NAME_16]’s view that it is not necessary for the Applicant to establish a depressed real estate market in order to avail of the exceptional circumstances provision. It is true that the Applicant did explain the loss in the market value of his home based on COVID-19, the timing of his forced relocation and the impact of the oil and gas downturn. However, even if [NAME_6] did not accept this as the cause of the loss of equity, she at no point questions the fact that the loss was incurred and its quantum. Nor does she suggest that the loss was in any way the fault of the Applicant. This means that the Applicant and his family are left with a catastrophic equity loss – regardless of whether he established a depressed market – which he was not required to do under the CFIRP. [ 74 ] Rather than addressing this reality, and the question of whether the inadequacy of the policy to address the Applicant’s catastrophic loss of equity is an exceptional circumstance in and of itself – [NAME_6] takes the view that classifying all equity losses above $30,000 would be a “de facto policy decision” and that policy decisions are in the purview of the [NAME_21]. However, by refusing to forward the Applicant’s request, [NAME_6] is depriving the [NAME_21] of the opportunity to interpret its existing policy in the context of a catastrophic equity loss not based on the former ground of a depressed market and where there is no factual dispute as to the actual loss suffered or, as [NAME_6] confirmed, “[t]here is no question that the expense [the Applicant] incurred is directly related to [his] relocation.” Or, alternatively, to consider whether relocation expenses that exceed the $30,000 HEA policy cap “are not clearly provided for in this policy” . [ 75 ] [NAME_6] may retain the discretion to seek [NAME_19] approval for cases that she determines to be exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, the question is whether her decision refusing to do so in this instance was reasonable. [ 76 ] The adequacy of the HEA policy was the subject of prior CDS decisions. For example, the September 2, 2020, CDS decision endorsed the concerns of [NAME_16]. The decision further directed that, pending the development, implementation and addition of a mechanism to the HEA benefit to reimburse [NAME_8] members for losses that exceed $30,000 in order to address catastrophic equity loss, the [NAME_26] is to support and staff all [NAME_8] members claims seeking 100% reimbursement of such losses to the [NAME_19] for approval under CFIRP article 2.1.01. The decision added that this is to continue until the catastrophic loss of equity provision has been incorporated into the CFIRP. Finally, that decision also directed that the case be brought before the [NAME_19] with a recommendation that the greivor be afforded HEA for 100% of the financial loss incurred with respect to the sale of their home (in Cold Lake in that case). [ 77 ] Similarly, an April 13, 2022, decision by the then CDS again acknowledged that the HEA benefit remains inadequate and again directed that the [NAME_26] ensure the request for 100% reimbursement of equity expenses be submitted to the [NAME_19] in accordance with article 2.1.01 for approval. [ 78 ] While I agree with [NAME_6] that prior CDS decisions are not binding on her if they are factually distinct, I do not agree that supporting [NAME_8] members by sending all catastrophic equity loss claims (i.e., the 5% of HEA claims that exceed $30,000) to the [NAME_19] creates a “de facto policy” decision. Indeed, [NAME_6] acknowledges that the [NAME_8] does not have the authority to make such policy.

Accordingly, it is difficult to see how the forwarding of such claims by the [NAME_8] to the [NAME_19] to be considered by the [NAME_19] serves to create policy – given that [NAME_8] lacks policy making authority. [ 79 ] Further, [NAME_6]’s decision does not, beyond this statement, explain why she does not agree with the approach taken by other CDS’s or how those decisions are factually distinct. She refers to the decisions identified by [NAME_16] where [NAME_6] rendered decisions regarding the loss of home equity due to exceptional circumstances but states only that she “continues to believe that the HEA benefit must be improved to minimize the financial loss associated with relations required for service-related reasons.” She declines to follow prior directions on the basis that she has determined that no exceptional circumstances exist in the Applicant’s situation. However, as I have indicated above, the Applicant has lost $189,019.40 in home equity because of the required relocation and he submitted that the HEA was inadequate to address this. In my view, [NAME_6] failed to engage with that aspect of the grievance or to explain why the substantial equity loss combined with the inadequacy of the existing HEA would not amount to an exceptional circumstance given the broadness of the definition of that term. It would then be up to the [NAME_19] to interpret and apply its own policy. [ 80 ] As stated in the Respondent’s written submissions, the [NAME_19] has the authority to approve all or a part of the expenses incurred due to exceptional circumstances and/or expenses not provided for in the CFIRP (citing article 2.1.01). Further, that the [NAME_12] and [NAME_8] grievance authorities do not have authority to approve expenses exceeding the provisions limits set out in the CFIRP, including expenses incurred due to exceptional circumstances (citing NDA , s 35(2)). Given that it was abundantly clear that the Applicant sought approval that exceeded the [NAME_8]’s authority and that only the [NAME_19] could offer the possibility of providing that relief, either by way of an exceptional circumstance or because catastrophic equity losses are not provided for in the CFIRP, in my view it was unreasonable for [NAME_6] not to address whether the catastrophic equity loss and the inadequacy of the existing HEA warranted referral to the TSB ( [NAME_25] at paras 127-128). [ 81 ] I also find that, while [NAME_6] states that the policy “merits improvement” and is an ongoing initiative with [NAME_13], she appears to then minimize the impact of the Applicant’s loss by stating: However, relocation [NAME_10] are also only one component of the total [NAME_9] package within the [NAME_8]. The total [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] package is pursued as a whole, and the [NAME_8] has seen significant improvements to many areas, including recent improvements to pay and relocation [NAME_10]. I will direct [NAME_13] to continue to pursue amendment to the CAFRD, including modernizing the specific provisions related to the HEA benefit. However, further changes to the HEA benefit will continue to be balanced with improvements to other [NAME_9] and benefit areas. [ 82 ] To broadly state that there have been improvements in pay and relocation [NAME_10] ignores the reality that the Applicant and his family have actually suffered a catastrophic equity loss of $189,019.40 . In that regard, I note that, the only “improvement” to the HEA, based on the record before me, was to increase the recoverable cap from $15,000 to $30,000 and even then the further $15,000 – unlike the first $15,000 – is a taxable benefit. The removal of the prior HEA benefit for equity loss beyond (then) $15,000 would not appear to be an improvement. I would also observe here that in some circumstances it may not just be the [NAME_8] member alone who suffers from this type of catastrophic equity loss. The spouses of [NAME_8] members may be employed outside the [NAME_8] and contributing, from their employment income, to the payment of mortgages on the family home and the building up of equity in that home. In such circumstances, the spouses’ contribution to the equity in the family home would also lost, and is not made up for by unspecified [NAME_8] member pay improvements. In short, catastrophic equity losses impact entire [NAME_22]. [ 83 ] This same minimalization of impact seems to be adopted in [NAME_6]’s response to the Applicant’s “people first” submission: People First. In your request to have your grievance submitted to [NAME_6], you highlighted that “the term “people first' is often used within the [NAME_8], as a guide to ensure our people are treated with fairness, equity, empathy, and transparency, even at the cost of personal sacrifice by those in the chain of command.” However, you feel that these words are not supported by the necessary actions. Specifically, you identify that the [NAME_8]’s approach to seek special consideration from [NAME_21], in cases such as yours when [NAME_8] members suffer a catastrophic loss through no fault of their own for service reasons, is contrary to the “people first' philosophy. You point to this again in your response to the [NAME_17]’s findings and recommendations. I understand how this may appear inconsistent with the 'people first philosophy. However, the HEA benefit is only one of many [NAME_10] that comprise the total [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] package for [NAME_8] members. Despite your dissatisfaction with the specific impact of this benefit to your situation, I am satisfied that the [NAME_8] has pursued the “people first" agenda to great success, in words and in actions. The [NAME_8] is continuously working to improve its programs for member and their families, and some of those supports involve outside authorities such as [NAME_21]. Similarly, this issue is under the authority of the [NAME_21], and the CAP is not able to act independently. [ 84 ] I do not agree with the Respondent that [NAME_6]’s engagement on this (and other) submissions demonstrates the reasonableness of her decision. This response again does not acknowledge the inadequacy of the HEA, nor does it explain how the Applicant’s $189,019.40 catastrophic equity loss is compensated for by other programs. And while [NAME_6] cannot independently revise [NAME_21] policy, [NAME_6] unreasonably failed to explain why the Applicant’s grievance was not considered on the basis that the current policy is inadequate with respect to catastrophic equity losses, such as his, and why this did not warrant the forwarding of his claim to the [NAME_19] to seek its approval of payment of the claim ( [NAME_25] at paras 127-128). ii. Market conditions [ 85 ] Given my finding above, I need not address the Applicant’s submissions as to whether [NAME_6] unreasonably found that the market conditions as a result of COVID-19 and the oil and gas industry do not amount to exceptional circumstances in his case. Conclusion [ 86 ] [NAME_6]’s finding that the Applicant has been “fairly treated in accordance with the [NAME_19] instructions and the [NAME_8] relocation policies” and, therefore, refusing the redress that he sought, is unreasonable. This is because [NAME_6] failed to consider the Applicant’s position that the existing policy is inadequate. [NAME_6] could not change the [NAME_21] policy implemented by the [NAME_8] pursuant to the CFIRP, in these circumstances she unreasonably failed to consider whether the catastrophic loss combined with the inadequacy of the existing policy is, in and of itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting its submission to the [NAME_19] for approval. [ 87 ] I am therefore granting this application for judicial review and remitting the matter back to [NAME_6] for redetermination. Costs [ 88 ] When appearing before, me the parties advised that they each sought costs in the amount of $3,000 if successful, in keeping with Tarriff B. The Applicant will accordingly have his costs in the amount of $3,000.

JUDGMENT IN T-5225-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is granted; The matter is remitted back to [NAME_6] for redetermination. An independent delegate of the CDS shall be appointed and shall act as [NAME_6] on redetermination, pursuant to section 29.14 of the National [NAME_5] Act . Costs are awarded to the Applicant in the amount of $3,000. "[NAME_35]" Judge APPENDIX “A” Relevant Legislation and Policy National [NAME_5] Act , RSC 1985, c N-5 [ NDA ] Right to grieve 29 (1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the [NAME_11] of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance. … Final authority 29.11 [NAME_4] is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit. Referral to [NAME_17] 29.12 (1) [NAME_4] shall refer every grievance that is of a type prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council, and every grievance submitted by a military judge, to the [NAME_17] for its findings and recommendations before [NAME_4] considers and determines the grievance. [NAME_4] may refer any other grievance to the [NAME_17]. ….. [NAME_4] not bound 29.13 (1) [NAME_4] is not bound by any finding or recommendation of the [NAME_17]. Reasons (2) [NAME_4] shall provide reasons for his or her decision in respect of a grievance if a) [NAME_4] does not act on a finding or recommendation of the [NAME_17]; or b) the grievance was submitted by a military judge. ….. Reimbursements and allowances …. 35 (2) The payments that may be made to officers and non-commissioned members by way of reimbursement for travel or other expenses and by way of allowances in respect of expenses and conditions arising out of their service shall be determined and regulated by the [NAME_19]. Queen’s Regulations and Orders [ QR&O ] , effective September 1, 2018 to March 31, 2026 7.21 – TYPES OF GRIEVANCES TO BE REFERRED TO [NAME_17] For the purposes of subsection 29.12(1) of the National [NAME_5] Act , the final authority shall refer to the [NAME_17] any grievance relating to one or more of the following matters: …. c) pay, allowances and other financial [NAME_10]; …. e) any decision, act or omission of [NAME_4] in respect of a particular officer or non-commissioned member. [NAME_5] [DAOD] 2017-1, Military Grievance Process General 8.1 A redress authority is a [NAME_8] officer who acts as either the [NAME_14] or [NAME_6]. Duties of a Redress Authority 8.7 A redress authority may in some circumstances need to consider the reasonableness of applicable laws, policies, orders, instructions and directives. The fact that a [NAME_8] member has been treated in accordance with applicable laws, policies, orders, instructions and directives does not automatically mean that the [NAME_8] member was treated fairly. ….. 8.9 The primary task of a redress authority is to determine whether the [NAME_18] has been aggrieved by the decision, act or omission in the [NAME_11] of the affairs of the [NAME_8] which gave rise to the grievance. Reasons ….. 8.22 A redress authority must: a) be able to set aside their personal or institutional preferences when considering and determining a grievance; b) consider the perspectives and positions of both the [NAME_8] decision-makers who had been involved in the subject of the grievance and the [NAME_18], in view of relevant information in the grievance file; and c) be aware of any fairness-related shortcomings in the original decision-making process that should be addressed by conducting a “de novo” review of the matter grieved. 8.23 A de novo review is a full and fair reconsideration of the matter grieved, accompanied by all the procedural fairness steps above, based on a review of all the relevant information in the grievance file obtained through those steps. When conducting a de novo review in order to correct previous procedural fairness shortcomings, a redress authority: a) must not simply endorse the reasonableness of the original decision; and b) must come to their own conclusion about the appropriate [NAME_8] response to the circumstances of the [NAME_18] in view of the information in the grievance file and the applicable laws, policies, orders, instructions and directives. [NAME_7] Relocation Program, effective April 19, 2018 to March 31, 2021 [CFIRP] Request for clarification /adjudication 1.3.02 Requests may be submitted to [NAME_12] through the [NAME_7] when [NAME_7] members: have incurred reasonable expenses resulting from exceptional circumstances or demands that do not appear to be covered by the relocation policy; or do not agree with the application or the interpretation of the CFIRP policy by the service provider. All requests shall include the following information: a written description of the decision/situation that generated the request and all supporting facts known to the [NAME_7] member; the rationale supporting the request, with a clear statement of the full [NAME_10] sought; i.e. what [NAME_10] the [NAME_7] member feels he/she should be entitled to; and all pertinent supporting documents such as posting instr, MPRR, invoices, airfare quotes, medical statements, Relocation Consultant’s statements, reports, if MSC and service spouse is also posted, both posting instrs etc. [NAME_7] shall return incomplete requests to [NAME_7] members with explanations on required documents/information. [NAME_7] shall respond directly to [NAME_7] members’ requests that do not meet the limitations of the policy as stated above with appropriate analysis and pertinent references. ….. Section 1.4 Definitions Exceptional circumstances Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, weather conditions, operational requirements or travel to remote areas. They are rare and shall only be considered in cases of extreme and unforeseen situations. ….. 2.1.01 Authorities [NAME_19] ([NAME_19]), has authority to: approve reimbursement of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the [NAME_7] member’s relocation but are either an exceptional circumstance or are not clearly provided for in this policy. Grievance Authorities and Director of [NAME_9] and [NAME_10] [NAME_11] ([NAME_12]): If a [NAME_7] member has not received a benefit because the relevant circumstances, although not dissimilar to, were different from the circumstances established, then the appropriate grievance authority for relocation [NAME_10] or [NAME_12] may, if he or she considers it would be equitable and consistent with the purpose of the CFIRP, approve the payment of all or part of that benefit. Director Relocation Business Management (DRBM) has the authority to: approve reimbursement or recovery of all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred that are directly related to the [NAME_7] Member’s relocation that are provided for in this policy or as authorized by [NAME_19] or [NAME_12]. 2.2.01 [NAME_12] is responsible for: monitoring the [NAME_11] of the CFIRP; and proposing changes to the policy to [NAME_19] ([NAME_19]) as required. ….. [NAME_7] are responsible for: providing guidance to [NAME_7] members regarding any policy clarification and liaise with the service provider on relocation issues; and considering requests for reimbursement that fall within the intent of the policy and when necessary forward requests to approving authority. …… 8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA) A member to whom this Directive applies is entitled to be reimbursed for any financial loss incurred in relation to the sale of their principal residence if: the closing date for the sale is on or after 19 April 2018; and the sale price is less than the purchase price paid by the member. The reimbursable amount is equivalent to the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price minus any reduction in the sale price that is identified in the agreement of purchase of sale and attributable to anything in the principal residence that required repair or replacement. Despite the definition of purchase price in Section 1.04, in relation to a principal residence that was a new home construction, the purchase price is the sum of the costs: identified in the Building Agreement, and incurred during the first year of occupancy of the residence for initial landscaping if those costs were not identified in the Building Agreement. The reimbursable amount will be paid as follows: Core benefit 80% of the reimbursable amount or $30,000, whichever is less. Custom benefit The reimbursable amount minus the amount paid under the Core Benefit. Personalized benefit The reimbursable amount minus the amounts paid under the [NAME_10]. NOTE Payments for Home Equity Assistance may have income tax implications. Members who receive this benefit should confirm the taxation rules applicable to their circumstances. FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-5225-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_2] v CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) PLACE OF HEARING: By videoconference using Zoom DATE OF HEARING: July 2, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME_1] J. DATED: july 13, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_2] For The Applicant (ON THEIR OWN BEHALF) [NAME_37] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent