# 2014-033 - Discrimination, Procedural Fairness

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–11–21

The grievor attended training in Trenton and, while on the course, an email was sent by a member of the training staff to the grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) stating that there were some concerns about her performance. Upon the grievor's return, the CO met with her to discuss her personnel development review (PDR) which the grievor refused to sign. The grievor subsequently applied for a deployment outside Canada and the request was approved by the CO.

Prior to the deployment, the grievor attended pre-deployment training at the Peace Support Training Centre (PSTC) in Kingston. During the training, concerns regarding the grievor's performance were raised to the attention of the grievor's chain of command (CoC) by the CO PSTC. The CO PSTC followed-up with a formal letter to the grievor's CoC noting his concerns and recommending that the grievor not be deployed. The Wing Commander and the grievor's new CO finally cancelled the deployment. They both met with the grievor to explain their decision and following the meeting, the grievor submitted a grievance contesting the decision to cancel her deployment at the last minute.

The grievor argued that she was not given a copy of the email message, that the contents were not discussed, and that no performance deficiencies were brought to her attention. She also insisted that it was inappropriate for the CO PSTC to contact the Wing Comd whom he knew, and that his letter was biased. The grievor also complained that her CoC failed to provide her with proper notice and/or justification for the decision. Lastly, the grievor stated that she was discriminated against while she was on training at the PSTC. As remedy, the grievor sought a new deployment. There is no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the grievor refused to grant the IA a time extension and requested adjudication by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Committee noted that the CO PSTC possessed extensive operational deployment experience and found that it was appropriate for him to contact the Wing Comd to discuss his concerns about the grievor. The Committee was also satisfied that the performance concerns were brought to the attention of the grievor by her previous CO when he attempted to discuss the PDR which she refused to sign. The Committee accepted the former's CO explanation that when he approved the deployment, he did so with the expectation that, with proper counselling and mentoring, the grievor would be sufficiently prepared for her mission.

The Committee found that it was reasonable for the new CO to rely on the information provided by the CO PSTC and for him to consult with the Wing Comd. The Committee noted that the CO has the final authority to determine whether a member should be deployed. Based on the information presented to him, the CO lacked confidence that the grievor was ready to deploy. The Committee found that his decision to cancel the grievor's deployment was reasonable in the circumstances. Concerning the allegation of discrimination, the Committee noted that the grievor had provided no evidence that she was treated adversely based on her race and found the allegation unsubstantiated. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–04–29

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.