# 2019-079 Careers, Canadian Forces Performance Appraisal System, Removal from Military Duties

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-02-26

The grievor disputed being removed from his position as Section Head following a Unit Disciplinary Investigation into allegations of unauthorized absences. He also disagreed with the ensuing negative Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) he received. The grievor argued that his removal lacked procedural fairness and due process, and that his PER was inaccurate, biased and prejudicial.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied redress. The IA nullified the original decision to remove the grievor after finding that the removal failed to follow the process outlined in article 101.09 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). However, the IA conducted his own review and found that the grievor merited removal from his position as the evidence on file led him to lose confidence in the grievor's ability to lead his unit. Likewise, the IA found that the scores and comments reflected on the grievor's PER were reasonable.  

The Committee concluded that the grievor's removal was procedurally unfair, having failed to follow the steps outlined in articles 19.75 or 101.9 of the QR&O. The Committee found that the decision to remove the grievor was null and void and that any breach of procedural fairness in this case was rectified by the de novo review provided through the grievance process.

Based on the file evidence and the additional submissions made by the grievor, the Committee found, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor was absent from work on some occasions without proper authorization. The Committee also noted that the grievor, through his actions, had lost the confidence of his superiors and subordinates alike.  Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's removal from his position was justified and supported by policy.

With respect to the grievor's PER, the Committee found that his performance and potential were assessed in accordance with applicable policy and that all ratings should remain unchanged. The Committee also found that the comments made by the grievor's superior in the PER appeared balanced and were not given as a form of retaliation or attack on the grievor.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress. The Committee also recommended that the text of the grievor's PER be revised to better align with the existing ratings.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations, and provided a replacement PER to be forwarded to the Director Military Careers Support Services.