# 2022-293 Careers, Selection Board, Selection Board Candidates List Process

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-03-25

The grievor suffered a loss of auditory acuity during his service with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), which he claimed prevented him from attaining a valid Second Official Language (SOL) profile, thereby adversely affecting his chances of promotion. Thus, the grievor alleged that the yearly Selection Boards discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability. The grievor also contended that, in the selection board process, his Personnel Evaluation Report scores were adjusted contrary to applicable policy. As redress, the grievor requested that his file be reevaluated by a supplementary board for the years in question.

The Initial Authority rejected the grievor's submission based on the time limits established by article 7.06 of the Queen Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

The Committee established that the grievor's circumstance did not constitute a case of prima facie discrimination. The Committee determined that the grievor had served for 14 years before experiencing the loss of auditory acuity, during which time he did not achieve a valid SOL profile. In addition, the CAF have policies and procedures in place that provide for accommodation of a disability hindering a CAF member's ability to learn a SOL. However, the grievor did not provide any evidence that he sought an accommodation to facilitate his SOL learning following his auditory loss. Furthermore, the Committee noted that many factors are considered in the assessment of a CAF member's potential for promotion, with the SOL profile being only one of them. Consequently, the Committee found that there was no substantive evidence to support the grievor's claim that his disability (loss of auditory acuity) was the reason he was unable to obtain and maintain a valid SOL profile or be promoted or that the CAF had discriminated against him on the grounds of disability. Furthermore, the Committee's review found no evidence that the scores the grievor received were adjusted in the selection board process or that his file was administered contrary to policy.