# 2019-013 Careers, Initial Counselling, Remedial measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-12-17

The grievor challenged an Initial Counselling (IC) administered for a conduct deficiency, arguing that the IC did not specify the expected standard he breached and that the evidence did not support he received prior counselling. The grievor asked for the removal of the IC from his personnel file.

The Initial Authority found that there was reliable evidence to demonstrate that the grievor breached an established standard of conduct and denied redress.

The Committee found that the evidence cited in the IC referring to prior counselling for a deficiency of the same nature was unreliable. The Committee also found the testimony of a witness, provided from contemporaneous notes, more reliable than the supervisor's account, showing the grievor did not breach the expected standard of conduct. Accordingly, the Committee recommended granting redress by cancelling the IC and removing all reference to it from the grievor's records.

FA decision summary

The Final Authority (FA), the Commander Canadian Army, did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that redress be granted by removing the IC and related documents from the grievor's files. Contrary to the Committee, the FA found that there was evidence that the grievor has been counselled on his deficiencies prior to formal step being taken. Although the Committee found that the Personnel Development Review was unreliable because it was not signed and there was no evidence that it was issued, the FA determined that it did not invalidate its content and therefore constituted evidence of the grievor's conduct during the period in question. The FA concluded that while non-verbal, the grievor's conduct did breach the Statement of Defence Ethics. Finally, the FA was of the view that the Adjutant's notes reasonably corroborate the Commanding Officer's (CO) recollection of events, although the Committee determined that they did not. The FA found it inappropriate to rely on the Adjutant's "definition of professional" conduct, as the applicable standard for conduct as contained in the Canadian Armed Force Code of Value and Ethics. The FA found that the grievor was agitated and that the way he was sitting in front of his CO could not be qualified as professional. According to the FA, the grievor’s conduct breached the Code of Value and Ethics. The FA found that the IC was warranted, but it did not clearly indicate which standard was breached. The FA directed that the IC be quashed and replaced by another IC, which references the expected standard the deficiency was based upon.