A Pattern Two Decades in the Making
When veterinarian Dr. Sarah Paré won her arbitration case in 2021, she thought the hard part was over. An independent arbitrator had ordered CFIA to update her job description, recognizing the significant new responsibilities she'd taken on as a Program Officer. The arbitrator's decision was clear: her role had evolved far beyond the original VM-03 classification.
But when CFIA issued the updated job description—complete with all those new responsibilities—they maintained her at the same pay level. Despite the arbitrator's findings. Despite the documented additional work. The answer was the same as it's been for over 20 years: no classification change.
Dr. Paré's story isn't unique. It's part of a troubling pattern that affects every VM member whose job has evolved but whose paycheque hasn't kept pace.
The system that's stacked against you
The classification system is designed to give CFIA complete control. Unlike job descriptions—which are covered by your collective agreement and can be taken to independent arbitration—classification decisions rest entirely with the employer.
Under your VM collective agreement (Article E1.01), you have clear rights to an official, complete job description that includes your classification and point rating. When there's a dispute about your job description, there's a fair process: a three-step grievance procedure that can end with binding arbitration before the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB), an independent body that makes impartial decisions.
But classification is different. Due to how federal labour laws are interpreted, classification falls outside your collective agreement. At CFIA, classification disputes go through a single-step process where the employer essentially reviews its own decision. There's no independent appeal. The fox is guarding the henhouse.
The only recourse for seriously flawed classification decisions is judicial review through Federal Court—a process with an extremely high standard that's reserved for clear and significant errors of law or fact. Even then, a judge doesn't decide your classification; they can only order CFIA to reconsider their decision properly.
Three cases that could change everything
Right now, we're fighting three major battles that could reshape how classification works at CFIA. Each case tells the same story from a different angle, and together they expose the fundamental unfairness of the current system.
The Paré case (VM-03 Program Officer) started when an arbitrator ordered CFIA to update a generic VM-03 job description in July 2021. The new description included substantial improvements and additional responsibilities. CFIA evaluated it and—surprise—maintained the VM-03 classification level. We advised members to grieve this decision. On June 26, 2024, CFIA dismissed the grievance, refusing to adjust any classification factors despite the arbitrator-ordered improvements.
We took this to Federal Court, arguing that CFIA's decision was unreasonable. The hearing was held on May 8, 2025, and we're expecting a decision any day now. This case could establish important precedents about how CFIA must handle classification when arbitrators order job description changes.
The Coupal case (VM-02 Supervisory Veterinarian) has an even longer history. Back in 2016, we won significant additions to this job description through the grievance process. But instead of classifying the improved job description, CFIA simply refused to issue any classification decision at all. We had to take them to the FPSLREB in 2021, which ordered the Agency to classify the 2016 job description and respect the grievance process.
When CFIA finally issued their decision, they maintained all the original factor ratings despite the substantial job improvements. We filed a classification grievance and presented detailed arguments on March 14, 2025, advocating for reclassification to VM-03 level. On May 8, 2025—consistent with their established pattern—CFIA denied the grievance and refused to adjust any factor ratings.
This case has now exhausted all internal processes, but we're not giving up. The Coupal grievers have signed mandate letters, and we're submitting a judicial review application to Federal Court by June 15, 2025.
The Abraham case (VM-01 Veterinarian) follows the same script. After the FPSLREB ordered job description updates in November 2023, CFIA maintained the existing classification level despite major changes. We're now heading to a classification hearing on October 7, 2025—and based on CFIA's track record, we know what their answer will be.
The broader stakes
These aren't just individual grievances—they're challenges to a system that seems designed to prevent fair classification regardless of evidence. CFIA's consistent refusal to adjust classifications, even when independent arbitrators order job description improvements, raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire process.
When the same outcome occurs case after case, year after year, decade after decade, it's not coincidence. It's a policy. And that policy costs you money every payday.
The outcomes of these Federal Court cases could force CFIA to actually consider the evidence when making classification decisions. They could establish that repeatedly ignoring arbitrator findings is unreasonable. They could create precedents that benefit every VM member whose job has evolved beyond their current classification.
What's Next
The coming months will be pivotal. Please ensure that your personal email is up-to-date.
We're expecting the Federal Court decision in the Paré case soon. The Coupal judicial review application was submitted by June 15, 2025. The Abraham classification hearing is set for October 7, 2025 with invitations going out to members a few weeks beforehand.
Each of these cases represents years of work, thousands of hours of preparation, and significant resources. But more than that, they represent our commitment to challenging a system that has denied fair classification to VM members for far too long.
CFIA's pattern of refusal may be consistent, but so is our determination to fight for what's right. The classification process should genuinely reflect the work our members perform, not serve as a rubber stamp for predetermined outcomes.
We’re in this fight for the long haul, and we will keep you informed all along the way.