# 2024-218 Careers, Bona Fide Operational Requirement – Language Proficiency, Discrimination, Official Languages Act, Second Official Language Competency

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-10

The grievor submitted two grievances disputing the selection criterion for the Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP). In the first, the grievor claimed the use of Years of Service Remaining (YSR) was contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the second, he claimed the use of second language ability went against the intent of the Official Languages Act (OLA) and the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) policy on a member's right to equal opportunity for advancement. As redress, the grievor requested the removal of YSR and Second Official Language (SOL) ability as prerequisites for the JCSP. 

The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority (IA) denied redress in both grievances. The IA found that the policy regarding YSR had been amended in the fall of 2020 to remove the requirement for JCSP candidates to serve at the rank of Colonel for a minimum of four years, acknowledging, however, that some communication materials may still include references to YSR before compulsory retirement age. As such, the IA directed the Director of Military Careers to remove all outdated references to this requirement. Regarding the inclusion of a member's SOL profile as part of the criteria for promotion, the IA found that it was both reasonable and required to meet the CAF's institutional needs and legal obligations under the OLA, citing Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instructions 02/22 which provides that all Regular Force Colonel positions are bilingual with a minimum CBC SOL competency profile. 

The Committee found that the grievor's age was likely not the reason for his non-selection for the JCSP, nor the limiting factor in his career progression. Further, the Committee found, based on a review of the applicable provisions, that a bilingual requirement for officers is in line with both Canadian law and CAF policies. Consequently, the Committee found the grievor had not been aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not afford him redress.