# 2019-131 Careers, Military Legal Training Plan
Military Legal Training Plan (MLTP)
Case summary
F&R Date: 2020-03-28
The grievor challenged not being selected for an interview in the 2018 Military Legal Training Program (MLTP) competition. As redress, he requested that he be placed in one of the 2019 MLTP positions; given the opportunity to complete his articles with the Judge Advocate General; be provided with an explanation about why he was not a considered more competitive candidate; and given advice on how to advance his legal career.
The Judge Advocate General, as the Initial Authority, found that the MLTP scoring process was fair, transparent and followed correctly.
The Committee found no evidence that the grievor's chain of command made any false, misleading or otherwise inaccurate representations to the grievor about his chances of MLTP acceptance. It thoroughly examined the grievor's scores in the discrete portions of the 2018 MLTP scoring criteria and concluded that they were simply not as high as the eight candidates out of 32 who were offered an interview.
The Committee also found that it was appropriate and reasonable for the grievor's chain of command to recognize his potential and support his military career goals, but that his pursuit of a military law career was a personal choice that was in no way unduly influenced by his chain of command and other Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) authorities.
While the Committee recommended the grievor's requested redress, it did recommend that the Final Authority consider asking the Office of the Judge Advocate General to provide the grievor with guidance on how to advance his legal career through other processes that might be available to him.
FA decision summary
The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. He found that the grievor was aggrieved but stated that he was unable to grant the redress sought since the grievor has since released from the CAF. The director disagreed with the selection board's assessment of the grievor's eligibility for an interview.
Page details
- Date modified: