u/RedditSgtMajor

What are the thoughts on this from within the PMed trade? A good and necessary change or another occupation split disaster waiting to happen?

It seems like such an arbitrary number. There must be some reason 12 was chosen. And, why does it switch to 10 years for subsequent bars? Shouldn’t it be multiples of 12?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to get it at 10 years, and every 10 after that, since every bar is already 10-year increments?

Does anyone here have historical knowledge as to why 12 years was chosen for the initial award?

I know what you’re going to say: “It’s the military; nothing makes sense.” But, I have to ask, as it’s got me curious.

Does anyone know how to actually reach customer service at TopOak? I ordered a RTT almost a month ago and it hasn’t even shipped, yet.

I tried to reach them via their contact form, since there’s no phone number on their website, but I’ve received no response for the last week. I just sent another email to their support address, but I’d rather talk to someone on the phone and have a frank conversation.

This is a very disappointing experience as a new customer and someone new to RTT. I may have to cancel my order if I don’t hear something very soon.

Previously known only free during weekdays. Now applies to weekends.

Law360 Canada (July 15, 2026, 3:56 PM EDT) -- The Federal Court has set aside the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) refusal to refer a retired officer’s request for reimbursement of a nearly $190,000 home-equity loss arising from a military posting, ruling that the decision failed to grapple with whether the catastrophic loss and the inadequacy of the relocation policy warranted referral to the Treasury Board.

In Briggs v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 938, released July 13, Justice Cecily Y. Strickland held that the refusal effectively foreclosed the only avenue through which the applicant could seek compensation beyond the policy limits.

“By refusing to forward the Applicant’s request, the [Final Authority] is depriving the [Treasury Board] of the opportunity to interpret its existing policy in the context of a catastrophic equity loss,” the judge wrote.

The self-represented applicant, Robert Briggs, joined the CAF as a medical officer in 1989. In 2012, Briggs was posted to Alberta, where he entered into a building agreement for a home in St. Albert for $1,024,399.

In May 2020, the applicant was posted to Ottawa. His home was eventually sold for $865,000, resulting in a home-equity loss of $189,019.

Briggs was eligible for relocation benefits under the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive, Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP), under which he received $43,650.39 in Home Equity Assistance (HEA) from the Core, Custom and Personalized funding components.

His post-tax recovery from the reimbursement was $28,314.

The applicant submitted a request to the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) for additional HEA benefits. However, the DCBA denied the request on the basis that the CFIRP policy limits prescribed for HEA benefits could not be overridden.

The applicant grieved the DCBA decision and sought an additional $166,085 in compensation. The CAF’s initial authority denied the grievance, and it was then submitted to the Final Authority (FA) for consideration at the applicant’s request.

The grievance was first referred to the Review Committee to provide findings and recommendations to the FA.

The Review Committee noted in its report that it had seen a rising number of grievances from CAF members who had experienced severe financial hardship as a result of massive equity losses caused by their relocation.

It noted that many of these grievances hinged on a revision to the CFIRP that removed the entitlement to receive 100 per cent HEA reimbursement for lost equity on homes sold in a depressed market. It also highlighted statements made by the DCBA about the inadequacy of the HEA benefit for CAF members who sustained catastrophic losses exceeding $30,000.

The committee also cited a 2018 CBC interview in which the DCBA said the CAF would try using a caveat in the CFIRP directive to apply to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) on a case-by-case basis for reimbursement of members who lost more than $30,000 in home equity.

It further cited previous Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) grievance decisions directing that claims for catastrophic equity losses exceeding $30,000 be submitted to the TBS pending the development of a new protection mechanism.

However, the FA disagreed with the committee’s analysis despite describing it as thorough and comprehensive.

The FA relied on a February 2021 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report and statistics from the Canadian Real Estate Association to conclude that there had been “remarkable stability” in average housing prices in Edmonton between 2018 and 2021.

The FA therefore concluded that the decrease in the value of the applicant’s home was not uniquely or primarily due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Briggs sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the FA acted unreasonably in refusing to refer his request for full reimbursement to the TBS.

Justice Strickland noted that while the FA was not required to accept the Review Committee’s findings and recommendations, she was required to explain her reasoning if she chose to reject them.

The judge found that the FA failed to grapple with the Review Committee’s view that it was not necessary for the applicant to establish a depressed real estate market to rely on the exceptional-circumstances provision.

Justice Strickland noted that even if the FA did not accept COVID-19 and the timing of Briggs’s forced relocation as the causes of the equity loss, she did not question that the loss had occurred or its amount, or suggest that it was the applicant’s fault.

“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,” the judge wrote.

The judge also noted that the adequacy of the HEA had been the subject of previous CDS decisions in which the CDS endorsed the Review Committee’s concerns.

She added that, in one decision, the CDS directed that, pending the development and implementation of an HEA mechanism to reimburse CAF members for equity losses exceeding $30,000, the Chief of Military Personnel support all CAF members’ claims seeking 100 per cent reimbursement and submit them to the TBS for approval.

The judge noted that the FA had not explained why she disagreed with the approach taken in previous CDS decisions or how those cases were factually distinct.

The court ruled that the FA failed to consider the applicant’s position that the existing policy was inadequate.

“[I]n 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 TBS for approval,” the judge wrote.

Justice Strickland granted the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to the FA for redetermination by an independent delegate of the CDS.

Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada was Leah Jamieson of the Department of Justice Canada.