# 2024-145 Careers, Discrimination, Performance Appraisal Report

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-07

The grievor contested his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) scores arguing that they were inaccurate, unsupported by evidence and discriminatory. He argues that, as a single parent with full custody of his children, he had difficulty balancing personal and professional responsibilities and was unable to establish a Family Care Plan. He argues that his Commanding Officer (CO) used his family status to justify low scores on his PAR which he felt were not reflective of his actual performance. 

The Initial Authority was unable to render a decision in the timeframe prescribed by the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces 7.15(2) and the grievor requested the file be forwarded to the Final Authority.

The Committee clarified that given its position as an independent administrative tribunal and not an occupational authority, it is unable to assess any member's personal competencies or work produced in their occupation. As such, the Committee could only assess whether the ratings appear to be consistent with the PAR Writing Guide and other evidence of performance throughout the year, and whether there is any evidence for the grievor's claim that he was scored lower based on his family status.  

The Committee found that in accordance with the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction 01/23- Performance Appraisal and Competency Evaluation, and the PAR Writing Guidelines, COs are required to use “Effective” as the default score on all behavioural competencies unless proven otherwise and the further deviation from an “Effective” rating requires increasing amounts of justification. The Committee determined that the grievor was assessed as “meets leadership expectations” which equated to an overall “Effective” score and did not require substantial documentation as his performance was considered standard. As for the individual behavioral indicators (BI) brought forth by the grievor, the Committee found that the Feedback Notes on the grievors file sufficiently clarified the reasons for several of his lower scores but did not support one. In the case of the one BI that was insufficiently documented, the Committee recommended that BI be slightly raised. 

Regarding the grievor's contentions on family-based discrimination, the Committee found there was insufficient evidence to declare discrimination in the overall PAR evaluation, however, found several BI sub-category scores did not take into account prior accommodations related to the grievors family-care duties which had been approved by the Chain of Command. As such, the grievor made a case for an increase to “Effective” for those particular categories. 

The Committee recommended the Final Authority afford redress by directing that the BI and subcategory scores identified in the report be amended accordingly.