# 2022-243 Careers, Cease-Training, Progress Review Board

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-24

The grievor alleged that they were wrongfully removed from Special Forces Course (SFC) 1901, given that the recommendation for their removal included a statement that they had failed multiple runs after attending a Progress Review Board (PRB). The grievor submitted that they had only done a single run following the PRB, and that this run had been deemed a “pass”, but was later altered to add additional infraction “tick marks”. The grievor maintained that there were numerous discrepancies, clerical errors, and typography errors in their training record. They argued that the information considered in making the cease-training decision was incorrect, and that the circled “pass” on their assessment sheet held more weight than any unsigned “tick marks” that would have amounted to a “fail”. When the grievor released from the Canadian Armed Forces, they amended their redress sought from course qualification to an ex gratia payment of $100,000.

The IA denied the grievor redress. They acknowledged the administrative errors in the grievor's course file relating to the run in question, but ultimately found that the scoring “tick marks” on the grievor's examination sheet amounted to a failure, rather than a pass. The IA found that the “tick marks”, in combination with the Chief Instructor's notes and a review of the training and standards required for the course, indicated that the grievor had failed the run. The IA found that true and accurate information regarding all pertinent details of the grievor's circumstances were provided in order to render a decision regarding the grievor's removal from SFC 1901.

The Committee noted that the grievor did not dispute the errors they made while a candidate on SFC 1901, which had resulted in Incident Reports and Initial and Formal Warnings. The grievor had signed this documentation, making them aware of their deficiencies prior to the run that lead to the cessation of their training. The Committee found that, on the balance of probability, the assessments during the SFC 1901 module were reasonable and in accordance with the policy on assessment provided, especially when considering the grievor's previous errors and failures. The Committee noted lack of clarity, inconsistent handwriting and absence of final scoring totals on the grievor's failed scoring sheet, but the Committee found that given the number of “tick marks” and the nature of the comments entered on the scoring sheet, on the balance of probability, the word “pass” was prematurely or mistakenly circled and that the grievor had actually failed the run in question. Noting the preceding, in combination with the previous citations for the same deficiencies, the Committee found that the resulting cessation of the grievor's training was reasonable and that the grievor was not aggrieved.

FA decision summary

The Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, acting as the Final Authority, stated that after his review of the grievance, he agreed with the Committee, and therefore would not provide redress.