Edits due to misreading all grievances as recommending re-enrollment instead of 1 of 3.
Correct. They also found no charter infringement in 2 of 3 cases.
Also, it’s a grievance review committee, there’s no requirement for charter lawyers (though I suppose one could be sitting).
It may also be possible that in the one of thee three cases there was a charter infringement caused by the policy, but that does not mean the policy itself infringed the charter.
An analogy would be a public space with a no dogs sign. A cops kicks out everyone with a dog. 3 people with service dogs complain about the ruling. 1 person were found to have a valid complaint because their dog was a seeing eye dog, which was allowed by the policy, but not properly enforced by the cop kicking people out. The no dog policy is not a charter infringement, as seeing eye dogs are allowed, despite being kicked out regardless. (Just an example, I have no idea how service dogs and seeing eye dogs work in the charter)
Last time I checked (PADS, 2001), all assistance dogs get to go anywhere their homies do, because to limit based on purpose and job function would be to ask the person what their particular malfunction is, and that’s a human rights violation (for which there is no upper limit on the lawsuit, FYI).
Again, that we just an example I made up, not based on anything.
However, the Canadian Forces has University of Service, which does allow it to limit employment based on employment limitations. For example, if you can’t pass the fitness test, you can’t stay in. Specific jobs also have further medical requirements (i.e. pilots need pretty good eyesight, infantrees need to be able to walk far with weight, submariners can’t be claustrophobic, etc). So they can’t ask what particular malfunctions are, but they can release you for having them.
Yeah, I forgot to explicitly agree it was contrived.
And you make an excellent point about limiting employment. I’m not sure how the private sector runs that and I don’t wanna touch it, but in the forces we did have a guy bounced out on medical because his was a field position and it turned out he was allergic to like everything green in ontario. ‘heli-evac with breathing issues’ kind of allergic. So I’ve seen that precedent on that side of the fence, at least.
Edits due to misreading all grievances as recommending re-enrollment instead of 1 of 3.
Correct. They also found no charter infringement in 2 of 3 cases.
Also, it’s a grievance review committee, there’s no requirement for charter lawyers (though I suppose one could be sitting).
It may also be possible that in the one of thee three cases there was a charter infringement caused by the policy, but that does not mean the policy itself infringed the charter.
An analogy would be a public space with a no dogs sign. A cops kicks out everyone with a dog. 3 people with service dogs complain about the ruling. 1 person were found to have a valid complaint because their dog was a seeing eye dog, which was allowed by the policy, but not properly enforced by the cop kicking people out. The no dog policy is not a charter infringement, as seeing eye dogs are allowed, despite being kicked out regardless. (Just an example, I have no idea how service dogs and seeing eye dogs work in the charter)
Last time I checked (PADS, 2001), all assistance dogs get to go anywhere their homies do, because to limit based on purpose and job function would be to ask the person what their particular malfunction is, and that’s a human rights violation (for which there is no upper limit on the lawsuit, FYI).
Again, that we just an example I made up, not based on anything.
However, the Canadian Forces has University of Service, which does allow it to limit employment based on employment limitations. For example, if you can’t pass the fitness test, you can’t stay in. Specific jobs also have further medical requirements (i.e. pilots need pretty good eyesight, infantrees need to be able to walk far with weight, submariners can’t be claustrophobic, etc). So they can’t ask what particular malfunctions are, but they can release you for having them.
Yeah, I forgot to explicitly agree it was contrived.
And you make an excellent point about limiting employment. I’m not sure how the private sector runs that and I don’t wanna touch it, but in the forces we did have a guy bounced out on medical because his was a field position and it turned out he was allergic to like everything green in ontario. ‘heli-evac with breathing issues’ kind of allergic. So I’ve seen that precedent on that side of the fence, at least.