Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Hebert
T-2273-93
Gibson J.
12/11/96
13 pp.
Human rights-Bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR)-Application for judicial review of CHRT decision uncorrected visual acuity standard applied to applicants to Regular Officer Training Program of CAF proposing to enroll in university physiotherapy program under sponsorship of CAF not constituting BFOR under CHRA, s. 15(a) -Application allowed-In light of Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1994] 3 F.C. 188 (C.A.), wherein CAF's uncorrected visual acuity standard found BFOR when applied to individual applying for direct entry into position as musician with CAF, and Canada (Attorney General) v. Robinson, [1994] 3 F.C. 228 (C.A.), uncorrected visual acuity standard used by CAF BFOR-National Defence Act providing member of regular force "soldier first" and liable for combat duty-Visual acuity standard representing BFOR against test of "sufficient risk" to respondent herself, her fellow members of CAF and public at large-Matter referred back for rehearing and redetermination in manner consistent with reasons herein-Subsidiary matters: Tribunal committed no breach of duty of fairness and no breach of natural justice in relying upon decision of another Tribunal rendered after CAF case herein closed without giving notice to parties it intended to do so and without providing opportunity to make supplementary representations or adduce supplementary evidence in response to other Tribunal decision as applicant, party to proceedings before other Tribunal, could have made representations thereon but failed to do so-Were decisions of Tribunal to stand, no basis to interfere with order on ground providing respondent with another opportunity for employment in CAF onerous on CAF-In CHRA, s. 53, compensation limit $5,000 including interest-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 15 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 32, s. 41), 53-National Defence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-5.