# 2023-031 Careers, Compulsory Retirement Age, Terms of Service

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-20

The grievor contested the use of the Fitness for Operational Requirements of Canadian Armed Forces Employment (FORCE) evaluation as the only physical fitness standard for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The grievor contended that the FORCE evaluation is biased against female members because it focuses on weight bearing tasks, which is not consistent with Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) standards. Furthermore, the grievor explained that she was approaching the compulsory retirement age (CRA) and contended that she had declined a promotion offer because she would be required to complete the FORCE evaluation, which she was not able to due to a medical condition.

The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority, rejected the grievance contending that the grievor was not grieving a decision, act, or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF that affected her personally and as such, did not meet the requirements of subsection 29(1) of the National Defence Act.

The Committee noted that the Universality of Service (UofS) principle, which is a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement per the Canadian Human Rights Act, is derived from the main missions of the CAF. The UofS principle is translated into Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation (CMTFE) standards which all CAF members must meet. The FORCE evaluation is the mechanism by which CAF members' ability to meet the CMTFE standards is measured. Documentation related to the development of the FORCE evaluation showed that a very thorough process was followed to develop the fitness standard expected of the profession of arms. The Committee found that any condition preventing a member from successfully completing the FORCE evaluation also hinders their ability to fulfill the Uof S principle.

The Committee also noted that the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services has developed a targeted and evidence-based program to provide wellness and fitness support to assist and address specific needs of women and gender diverse personnel in meeting the CMTFE standards.

The Committee also noted that, while retention and extension of Terms of Service (TOS) beyond CRA might constitute routine practice, it is not an inherent entitlement. Likewise, service beyond CRA is not a right, and each extension beyond CRA must be assessed on an individual basis. Notwithstanding her not having completed the FORCE evaluation, the CAF twice offered the grievor a TOS extension beyond CRA; the grievor having accepted the second offer.

The Committee found that TOS extension past CRA granted to the grievor, along with a promotion, was evidence that successful completion of the FORCE evaluation was not the only consideration when offering extensions beyond CRA.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress. Nevertheless, the Committee also recommended that future reviews of CAF fitness standards include a full review of the latest research on the issue through a GBA+ lens, including an emphasis on specific tailored training regimes for personnel identified as being at higher risks for injuries.

FA decision summary

The Deputy Director, Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (Deputy DCFGA), acting as a delegated FA reporting directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation. The Deputy DCFGA emphasized that the FORCE test is a reasonable and legitimate tool for ensuring that CAF members meet universality of service requirements in a manner that is in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act.