The Canadian Armed Forces faces a federal human rights hearing after a sexual minority military officer alleged she was denied marriage counselling because she was unmarried.Blacklock's Reporter says Capt. Corrin Haag filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, claiming military personnel discriminated against her based on marital status or sexual orientation when she sought relationship counselling in 2023.“The complaint was based on a specific allegation about an incident in which she alleges she was denied marriage counseling services because she was unmarried,” wrote the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.Haag, who served as co-chair of the Canadian Armed Forces' Defence Team Pride Advisory Organization, alleged a team leader questioned her marital status before refusing her request for counselling.The team leader allegedly told Haag that she could not receive marriage counselling because she was not married and suggested her relationship would be more legitimate if she were.The individual allegedly said that if Haag were married, her relationship would be “real and stronger,” according to Tribunal records.“Ms. Haag alleged she was denied access to marriage counseling services because she was unmarried and therefore this treatment was related to her marital status or sexual orientation,” wrote the Tribunal.Haag told the tribunal that sexual minority military members can face additional difficulties establishing personal relationships, particularly when posted to smaller or remote communities.“Haag states that members of the LGBTQ community have more difficulty forming local relationships and that they may turn to online relationships,” wrote the Tribunal.“She mentioned meeting her partner online, being in a long distance relationship and living in remote areas with small LGBTQ populations.”The tribunal did not provide further details about Haag's relationship or the circumstances surrounding her request for counselling.The allegations have not been established as findings of discrimination.The complaint comes more than three decades after the Canadian government lifted its prohibition on sexual minority personnel serving in the Armed Forces.Cabinet ended the ban in 1992, making Canada one of a small number of countries at the time to permit openly sexual minority recruits.Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland had already adopted similar policies..Military commanders acknowledged at the time that a significant proportion of serving personnel could be gay, although precise figures were unavailable.“If one assumes the Canadian Forces is a mirror of Canadian society then upwards to 10% of the military could have homosexual orientation to some degree,” stated a 1991 military document entitled Information Booklet On Sexual Orientation In The Canadian Forces.“These are best estimates in both the American and Canadian contexts since accurate numbers could only be known if all homosexuals declared themselves as such.”A subsequent military questionnaire conducted in 2016 found 2.9% of regular force members and reservists identified as gay.That compared with a 4% figure for the general population cited in a 2021 Statistics Canada report entitled Statistical Portrait Of Canada’s Diverse LGBTQ Communities.The Armed Forces has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to diversity and inclusion, including efforts to improve conditions for sexual minority personnel.A 2021 Department of National Defence briefing note entitled Diversity And Inclusion pledged to create a workplace where military members could serve without discrimination.“We will continue to work hard to build a defence team where all members feel safe and protected,” said the briefing.“It is clear a lack of diversity in the Canadian Armed Forces is just one of the issues confronting this government.”“National Defence is committed to building an inclusive and modern defence team that reflects Canada’s diversity, values and culture.”The tribunal proceedings will examine Haag's allegations concerning the denial of counselling services and whether the treatment she described violated protections under federal human rights legislation.No ruling on the merits of her discrimination complaint was identified in the tribunal account.
