# 2024-164 Careers, RMC Physical Performance Test

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-12-16

The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) decision to remove him from the Regular Officer Training Program (ROTP) and full-time studies. The grievor contended that following his failure of the Royal Military College (RMC) Physical Performance Test (PPT), he was placed under ROTP-Civilian University; however, he was later found responsible for an Academic Integrity Violation (AIV) and removed from his academic program. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Continuing Education Officer Training Plan (CEOTP) to complete his studies on a part-time basis. The grievor questioned the emphasis placed on the fitness pillar and contested his transfer to CEOTP asserting that it does not align with the conditions agreed upon in his initial contract with the CAF. As redress, he requested authorization to return to RMC to complete his degree. 

The Commander Canadian Defence Academy, acting as the Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance asserting that there was the expectation of high standards to graduate from RMC with four pillars that apply to all cadets. The IA noted that the grievor had signed an agreement with the CAF agreeing that he would receive subsidized education as long as he fulfilled certain requirements including being successful at the PPT. Given that he had not met this requirement, the CAF had to modify their agreement; however, under the CEOTP, he would have the option to complete his degree at any university. The IA determined that the decision to transfer the grievor to the CEOTP was fair and rendered with equitable application of policies.

The Committee determined that, despite failing the PPT and committing an AIV, the grievor was granted the opportunity to complete a university degree under the CEOTP subsidized by the CAF and continue his military career in his chosen occupation. The Committee found that in the grievor's circumstances, considering the potential alternatives including release, the CAF's decision was fair, justified, and consistent with policy and therefore, the grievor was not aggrieved by this decision. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.