# 2024-301 Careers, Promotion, Promotion Criteria

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-03-26

On 31 May 2023, a few months after the grievor had transferred into the legal officer occupation in the Regular Force and been promoted to the rank of Captain (Capt), a new promotion policy governing advancement from Capt to Major (Maj), set out in the Military Employment Structure Implementation Plan (MES IP) for legal officers, came into force. The grievor subsequently learned that he did not meet the requirements of the grandfather provision that would have allowed him to be promoted under the former policy, as that provision applied only to Capts who, as of 19 July 2022, were either performing legal duties or completing their university studies under the Military Legal Training Plan, neither of which applied to him. The grievor argued that the implementation of the MES IP for legal officers was unfair and inequitable, and that the choice of the retroactive effective date was arbitrary. He further maintained that he had not been properly informed of the implementation of this policy during the recruiting process. As redress, the grievor requested that the grandfather provision be applied to his case, thereby entitling him to automatic promotion to the rank of Maj after completing 2 years in the rank of Capt as a legal officer.

The Initial Authority did not render a decision on the grievance within the prescribed time limit, and the grievor requested that the grievance be referred to the Final Authority (FA).

First, the Committee determined that, because the grievor voluntarily released from the Canadian Armed Forces before completing 2 years in the rank of Capt, he did not meet the conditions required for promotion to the rank of Maj. Nevertheless, the Committee considered the issues concerning the scope and effective date of the grandfather provision. The Committee concluded that the new competitive promotion policy, as well as the chosen effective date, were reasonable, as both were based on a study of operational requirements and an assessment of legal officer staffing levels conducted over several years. Work to implement the new IP, including the development of a new training curriculum, had begun before the formal approval of the MES IP. The Committee also found that the grievor had been adequately informed during the selection process of the possibility that the promotion policy would change. The Committee recommended that the FA not grant the grievor redress.