3 ms·
> a person's record of charges that did not lead to a conviction is not publicly available, but rather requires an individual's consent. Unless I misunderstood
by belval 3y ago
> a person's record of charges that did not lead to a conviction is not publicly available, but rather requires an individual's consent.
Unless I misunderstood isn't that almost the exact same thing though? When getting hired they will ask you to fill out some forms prior to your background check that explicitly give the permission to run a background check. I never tried to refuse but I doubt it would be welcomed.
- _nqfy 3y agoIt's still a problem for Barker, and I don't want at all to discount that his situation is unjust. However, the non-conviction records will not necessarily show up on his report. If the employer requests the base level of a background check, the records will not show up. If the employer instead requests a more in-depth check (a PIC), the records may or may not show up. Not all employers would request the more in-depth check. Barker is therefore not at a disadvantage for all jobs for a non-convicted charge, but it is completely unjust that he can potentially be at a disadvantage for a fair number of jobs. Barker deserves recourse and more awareness of his case. But at the same time, the potential impression that any Canadian resident that is charged-but-not-convicted will have a publicly-available record that bars them from work, is not a correct one.