Federal court | Crown
ARMED FORCES
Course of action taken by board arrived at through fair process
Applicant failed three baseline exercises. Board determined applicant should cease geo tech training. Applicant successfully grieved and was given credit for qualification level 4. Applicant failed two performance objectives in qualification level 5. Board again recommended applicant cease geo tech training. Commanding officer ordered recommendation to be put into effect. Applicant’s grievance was dismissed. Applicant was found to have been treated fairly, reasonably and in accordance with Canadian Armed Forces policies and directives. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant’s attempts at retest were not likely to be successful. Applicant simply disagreed with decision. Allegations that it was unfair in endorsing tainted earlier decision were nothing more than bald assertions. There was nothing that could be described as reviewable error based on unreasonableness or procedural fairness. Decision was reasonable. Course of action taken by board was within its jurisdiction and arrived at through fair process. Assertions applicant was deprived of opportunity to present case was unsubstantiated.
Syed v. Canada (Attorney General) (July 29, 2011, F.C., Russell J., File No. T-1704-10) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 396 (21 pp.).
Course of action taken by board arrived at through fair process
Applicant failed three baseline exercises. Board determined applicant should cease geo tech training. Applicant successfully grieved and was given credit for qualification level 4. Applicant failed two performance objectives in qualification level 5. Board again recommended applicant cease geo tech training. Commanding officer ordered recommendation to be put into effect. Applicant’s grievance was dismissed. Applicant was found to have been treated fairly, reasonably and in accordance with Canadian Armed Forces policies and directives. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant’s attempts at retest were not likely to be successful. Applicant simply disagreed with decision. Allegations that it was unfair in endorsing tainted earlier decision were nothing more than bald assertions. There was nothing that could be described as reviewable error based on unreasonableness or procedural fairness. Decision was reasonable. Course of action taken by board was within its jurisdiction and arrived at through fair process. Assertions applicant was deprived of opportunity to present case was unsubstantiated.
Syed v. Canada (Attorney General) (July 29, 2011, F.C., Russell J., File No. T-1704-10) 205 A.C.W.S. (3d) 396 (21 pp.).
