# 2014-172 - Discrimination, Pilot, Training Failure

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–06–16

The grievor argued that the decision to cease his flight training was discriminatory on the basis of family status. He maintained that his subsequent course was overloaded and the instructor continuity, quality and methods of instruction were poor. As redress, the grievor sought a waiver from the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) to address the career consequences of the unlawful/unfair treatment, the rewriting of his course reports and a disciplinary investigation into the decision to return him to his unit.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor's first removal from training seemed premature and without sufficient indication that he lacked focus or was experiencing difficulties, or that his personal situation would impact his training success or constitute a hardship upon the CAF. Further, the IA found that subsequent training received by the grievor was not optimal. Although not the redress sought, the IA offered the grievor the opportunity to return to pilot training in response to his grievance.

The Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved when he was removed prematurely from training on the basis of his family status, in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Additionally, the Committee found that the grievor's contention that he was subjected to “non-standard and unfair training conditions” also had merit. The Committee was of the opinion that re-course was not the most appropriate remedy in the grievor's case. Instead, the Committee determined that the best way to address the grievor's lost career progression was to recommend that the CDS exercise his authority to waive promotion requirements, in accordance with Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces article 11.02, and amend the grievor's promotion date and award him concomitant seniority and back pay.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–10–29

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings but found that the IA's offer to return the grievor to pilot training was appropriate. The FA did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the CDS use his authority to waive promotion criteria: retroactively promoting the grievor is unreasonable and would result in a disproportionate treatment in relation to his peers.