Background
Captain Robert John Snook (Retired) served with the Canadian Armed Forces and Naval Reserve. Upon reaching the compulsory retirement age (CRA) of 60 on August 7, 2020, he obtained two extensions under a COVID-19 pandemic directive—first to October 31, 2020, and then to August 7, 2021. On January 19, 2021, Snook applied for a third extension to continue serving until August 7, 2025 (age 65). His commanding officer declined to support the extension, citing the elimination of personnel deficiencies that had warranted the earlier extensions. The Chief of Military Personnel rejected the request on July 21, 2021, finding no exceptional need or operational requirement for further service.
Snook grieved this decision through the military grievance process. The Military Grievance External Review Committee (MGERC) examined the case and recommended denial on October 26, 2021. The Final Authority—Brigadier-General Solomon, acting for the Chief of Defence Staff—issued its decision on May 9, 2025, affirming the denial after analyzing the grievance de novo. Snook then sought judicial review in the Federal Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ngo dismissed the application for judicial review without costs. The court held that the Final Authority’s decision was neither procedurally unfair nor unreasonable. On procedural fairness, the court found that Snook had received full disclosure of all documents before the decision-maker, knew the case he had to meet, and had multiple opportunities to submit evidence and arguments. When the DCFGA officer followed up with him in January 2023 asking whether he wished to provide further submissions, Snook did not clearly respond and submitted nothing further until the Final Authority rendered its decision in May 2025. The court concluded this did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.
On the merits, the court applied the reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing the high deference owed to the Chief of Defence Staff’s decisions on military staffing and retention matters. The court rejected Snook’s arguments that the Career Manager’s recommendation should have been determinative, holding that the NAVRES Interim Guidance required both the Career Manager’s recommendation and the Commanding Officer’s concurrence. The court found it was open to the Final Authority to rely on the Briefing Note, which considered broader staffing needs of the Naval Reserve unit, and to conclude that there were no exceptional circumstances or operational requirements justifying extension. While acknowledging that general staffing shortages existed in the Naval Reserve, the court noted that generalized understaffing does not automatically justify individual extensions; each request must be assessed case-by-case. The court found the Final Authority’s reasoning was intelligible, transparent, and justified—a reasonable outcome defensible on the facts and law.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial review of military grievance decisions is highly deferential to the Chief of Defence Staff, particularly on operational and staffing assessments within the CDS’s specialized expertise.
- A CRA extension requires both a favorable Career Manager recommendation and support from the member’s chain of command; the CM’s view alone is not determinative.
- General evidence of organizational staffing shortages does not create an operational requirement that justifies extending an individual member’s service beyond mandatory retirement age.
- A member must actively pursue additional submissions during the grievance process; prolonged silence after a follow-up inquiry can support a finding of procedural fairness despite eventual delays in the decision.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in military personnel matters and reinforces the judiciary’s deference to military expertise and judgment. For CAF members seeking extensions beyond CRA, it establishes that neither demonstrated organizational need nor personal willingness to serve automatically triggers approval—extensions remain discretionary, case-specific decisions requiring both managerial and chain-of-command support. The decision also instructs that even multi-year delays in grievance decisions do not automatically render them moot or unfair if the member fails to pursue their own submissions during that period.
For military lawyers and human resources practitioners, the judgment confirms that procedural fairness in grievances does not require advance notice of the final decision, a draft for comment, or continuous follow-up when the member has received full disclosure and had opportunity to respond. The decision reinforces that the CDS’s assessment of operational priorities—whether hard sea trades or other specializations—is entitled to judicial deference and that broad staffing data cannot override the conclusion that an individual’s retention is not operationally critical.