To me, this sort of thing is a compelling reason NOT to deliberately expose both pilots to the same potential problem.
If I interpret this as to what I think you mean, are you leaning towards the Monitored Approach concept when conditions become close to minima. I operated under the more old fashioned conventional of PF makes all the decisions to a MA as an SOP when conditions required it. Indeed, one time after making a GA under the old conventional method we briefed a MA for the 2nd approach and succeeded. I'll admit it was not an SOP, it just seemed like a good idea at the time and the F/O PF, who flew both approaches, agreed. It was not a problem as it was just like a single channel LVO approach, which was an MA as SOP.
IMHO crew discipline on NPA's is critical. One head in one head in/out approaching cloud base and then head out approaching DA. PF is 'the GA guy'.
Is that what you meant by not exposing both pilots to the same problem? Anything to avoid 2 heads out close to the ground. This is exacerbated by captain as PM. He's 2 responsibilities being PM and also captain with overall responsibility for the flight and trying to help PF acquire the clues. Clear defined duties for both would help avoid this. Asking not what Canada's CAA guidance is on what to do at DA, what does Westjet's NPA SOP say? That is an approved document? is it well written, unambiguous and sensible; or does it need rewriting to prevent reoccurrence?