Just based on reading the first link you posted, what you've said is incorrect, as it says they can ask for a "Criminal record and judicial matters check" which includes charges.

If that's the case, "they can't" reject you just based on charges really means "they can as long as they don't say they did".

In my experience in working in Canada the records check is done after an offer is extended since it is not free, requires the consent of the person being checked, and takes several days at best, so it would be very obvious why the offer was retracted.

I haven't said anything incorrect. I said that employers can only factor convictions, not that they can't get access to other records.

He is likely referring to a "vulnerable sector check". This is a special type of background check for people that interact with children, the disabled or seniors etc. This type of background check includes stuff like expunged convictions, or charges where prosecutions were not pursued.

It can be a useful tool, but it obviously needs to account for instances such as this.

I found that Canada has three types of background checks: the Vulnerable Sector Check (VSC) as you mentioned, the Police Information Check (PIC), and the Criminal Record Check (CIC).

The VSC always includes non-conviction records. The CIC omits these types of records, as this only reports convictions. However, the middle-level PIC can include these records on a case-by-case basis. The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre reports [1]: "The police will often disclose your non-conviction records in a PIC if they believe the information will help the potential employer or other agency in their decision-making process. This assumes that these agencies are qualified to make a determination that the information disclosed will determine the candidate’s suitability or pose a safety risk."

The circumstances are especially unfair to Barker as he has been working for Duncan First Nation in a role that requires involvement in finance. So, Barker may be especially affected by the non-conviction record even for jobs related to managing finances that don't require a VSC, but also a PIC, as a police department would likely find the record relevant for any position related to finances.

[1] https://www.aclrc.com/disclosure-of-non-conviction-records

I'm not sure (EDIT: replaced 'it is' with 'it should be') a useful tool when taking non-convictions into account. If person A was arrested and then charges were dropped, does that make them less innocent than person B who was never arrested in the first place?

You could argue that from a probabilistic view, any person who is arrested for a crime is more likely to be a criminal than one who is never arrested ever - and it's up to us as a society whether we want to expose that information so that people can avoid hiring those who have ever been arrested.

Imagine a situation where a elementary school hires a teacher. They find out that the individual has been investigated several times for sexual assault etc. but the police were never able to bring charges, (which is extremely common). This sort of policy comes from decades of experience with the church, Scouts etc. having to deal with thousands of these types of scandals.

You could also argue that someone who was arrested, but never convicted, is even less likely to be a criminal.

After all, the not inconsiderable resources of the state were focused specifically on that person and their behavior, and the state determined that there wasn't enough evidence to even proceed with charges.

A person who has never been arrested has likely never had someone who is deeply incentivized to find wrongdoing look into their actions. It would seem that, logically, we should look most suspiciously at those who have never been arrested!

This is of course a naive view of the justice system. We should perhaps treat an arrest as nothing at all since we know that plenty of innocent people get arrested, and the noble thing to do is presume innocence absence a conviction instead of presuming guilt on a weak signal.

> You could argue that from a probabilistic view, any person who is arrested for a crime is more likely to be a criminal than one who is never arrested ever - and it's up to us as a society whether we want to expose that information so that people can avoid hiring those who have ever been arrested.

Radical feminism really fucked society with this logic since it resonates with hysterics and fools. Previously, it was how everyone blames all crime in town on the Bad Kid because he was caught stealing that one time.

"He clearly has it in him to do it!" they say. We all do, I say. Criminals aren't Morlocks from the fucking moon, they're people just like you who were unlucky/incompetent enough to get caught.

Arrests/accusations are cheap. Convictions require vetting and evidence. Weighing both the same is a social travesty that defeats the purpose of the justice system and opens everybody up to being framed for anything.

If you dare to know how dangerously you live, read up on domestic violence laws and see how many you break when arguing with your spouse. It takes very little to get yourself arrested.