I'm currently going to go ahead and side along with dapaterson's earlier comment -
The decision was ruled discriminatory because the adjudicator had only two options - rule to uphold the standard or declare it discriminatory. In this case, the owness was on the employer (as it always is as per Canadian Common Law based on Charter Rights in this area) to -prove- that the standard was not arbitrary.
This does not mean that the CF/DND can not set a new even more stringent standard. It just means that whatever standard DND sets may not be arbitrary. From what I gather, it was more that DND did not prove the case for why the standard is xxxx in xxx minutes, but instead just decided to state that xxxx in xxx is the standard and thats what we feel.
The Charter is a good thing; the problem is that many people have no clue how to apply it or argue with respect to it(including, it appears, often some lawyers and delegated officials). Since this is not an SCC ruling, this is by far not the end of anything.
You show up to court to fight a speeding ticket unprepared and without the ability to explain your side, you'll lose, even if you weren't speeding.
The law isn't about what is right or wrong, its what you can -prove- is right or wrong. DND needs to get better at proving the standards you all have spent pages arguing for.
The decision was ruled discriminatory because the adjudicator had only two options - rule to uphold the standard or declare it discriminatory. In this case, the owness was on the employer (as it always is as per Canadian Common Law based on Charter Rights in this area) to -prove- that the standard was not arbitrary.
This does not mean that the CF/DND can not set a new even more stringent standard. It just means that whatever standard DND sets may not be arbitrary. From what I gather, it was more that DND did not prove the case for why the standard is xxxx in xxx minutes, but instead just decided to state that xxxx in xxx is the standard and thats what we feel.
The Charter is a good thing; the problem is that many people have no clue how to apply it or argue with respect to it(including, it appears, often some lawyers and delegated officials). Since this is not an SCC ruling, this is by far not the end of anything.
You show up to court to fight a speeding ticket unprepared and without the ability to explain your side, you'll lose, even if you weren't speeding.
The law isn't about what is right or wrong, its what you can -prove- is right or wrong. DND needs to get better at proving the standards you all have spent pages arguing for.
