# Ottawa to pay nearly $1B to settle sexual misconduct lawsuits against CAF



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2019)

Ottawa to pay nearly $1B to settle sexual misconduct lawsuits against Canadian Armed Forces

The Canadian government has agreed to pay nearly a $1 billion to settle class-action lawsuits from Canadian Armed Forces members who allege rampant sexual misconduct in the military. 

"While not admitting liability, the government of Canada has agreed to a settlement," reads a statement

Of the $900 million set aside, $800 million will cover current and former members of the armed forces and $100 million will go to Department of National Defence employees who experienced sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation on the job.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-settlement-1.5216307


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Jul 2019)

That's it, I gotta put in a complaint.   :


----------



## FSTO (18 Jul 2019)

Rampant Sexual Misconduct? 

Definition:
rampant
[ˈrampənt]
ADJECTIVE
(especially of something unwelcome or unpleasant) flourishing or spreading unchecked.
"political violence was rampant" · [more]
synonyms:
uncontrolled · unrestrained · unchecked · unbridled · widespread · [more]
(of a person or activity) violent or unrestrained in action or performance.
"rampant sex"
synonyms:
vehement · strong · violent · forceful · raging · wild · intense · fanatical · passionate

I guess I'm pretty blind then. Because I never saw anyone naked chasing each other down the flats of HMCShips I served in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That's it, I gotta put in a complaint.   :



I am sure I felt harassed at some point, where do I sign up?


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jul 2019)

_I stand to be corrected_, but according to the info-machine, if your name's not on the class action list now, I don't read any indication of being able to jump on ...


> Deputy Minister Jody Thomas and Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance issued the following statement:
> 
> “Today, the Government of Canada announced that a settlement has been reached between the Canadian Armed Forces/Department of National Defence/Staff of the Non-Public Funds and *the plaintiffs in class action lawsuits initiated by seven former members of the CAF.*
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jul 2019)

Plaintiffs and their lawyers negotiate a settlement on behalf of the class; that agreement is ratified by the court, and then anyone within the class definition may apply for compensation in accordance with the agreement.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jul 2019)

More information will flow i nthe fall; for now, here's the official website:

https://www.classaction.deloitte.ca/en-ca/Pages/CAF-DNDsexualmisconductclassaction.aspx


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2019)

Since OP Honour was initiated and the report center spooled up I'd be curious to see:
-how many charges have been laid
-how many members have been found guilty; and
-how many members have been released as a result.

And then compare those numbers to pre-op honour.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More information will flow i nthe fall; for now, here's the official website:
> 
> https://www.classaction.deloitte.ca/en-ca/Pages/CAF-DNDsexualmisconductclassaction.aspx



Interesting in that it takes you to a consulting company's website...


----------



## FJAG (19 Jul 2019)

For all of you who already hate lawyers, here's another reason:



> 17.01 Legal Fees – CAF Class
> Within fifteen (15) days of the Implementation Date, Canada shall pay to Class Counsel its legal
> fees in respect of the CAF Class in the amount of twenty five million dollars ($25,000,000.00),
> plus applicable taxes at the rate applicable in the province of Ontario, which shall be in addition
> ...



 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (19 Jul 2019)

> However, prior to the settlement, government lawyers tried to halt the class action suit, telling a court that the government does not "owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault," according to CBC.



I'm usually not one of those who gets riled and ask for heads to roll, but..

WHAT. THE ACTUAL. FUCK?


----------



## brihard (19 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> For all of you whop already hate lawyers, here's another reason:
> 
> :cheers:



25 million on a $1b class action? That’s really a pretty modest cut. 2.5%

I’d be curious to know how many lawyer-hours went into this file from start to finish. They’ve been at this for a while.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2019)

For Ross, Roy & Satalic, legal fees were $15M plus tax, so this is in the ballpark.  In fact, proportionately, it's less.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For Ross, Roy & Satalic, legal fees were $15M plus tax, so this is in the ballpark.  In fact, proportionately, it's less.



It's like we're getting a deal with our tax dollars  :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> For all of you who already hate lawyers...


Who _doesn't_ ?     ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jul 2019)

I know a number of lawyers that also hate lawyers... but they have the best jokes about the profession! :cheers:


----------



## CountDC (19 Jul 2019)

Ottawa to pay nearly $1B to settle sexual misconduct lawsuits against Canadian Armed Forces

Have to admit reading comments on news pages can be interesting some times.    One person brought up an interesting point.  If they were working at Company X and a victim of sexual misconduct the charges and suit would be against the individual.  Mr/Ms Y would be paying.  So why is this suit against the CAF and tax payers footing the bill? Was the CAF supposed to provide something above and beyond Company X?

Had the displeasure at one point dealing with things in Ottawa and a lot times the problem with these cases were it was a he said/she said case when the MPs investigated with no evidence to support punishment.  

I wonder how many males will be filing and what the reaction will be to it.  Still amazed at how it is still assumed the victim is a female.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Jul 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Ottawa to pay nearly $1B to settle sexual misconduct lawsuits against Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> Have to admit reading comments on news pages can be interesting some times.    One person brought up an interesting point.  If they were working at Company X and a victim of sexual misconduct the charges and suit would be against the individual.  Mr/Ms Y would be paying.  So why is this suit against the CAF and tax payers footing the bill? Was the CAF supposed to provide something above and beyond Company X?
> 
> ...



That’s not accurate. Example below.

When events take place and persons aren’t held to account in multiple instances this is what happens. And if it can be proven a corporation knew about incidents and did not act accordingly in preventing similar acts from taking place again, then the corp. can easily be held responsible. 



> ...Lewis later learned that WestJet had investigated a complaint from a flight attendant two years earlier alleging the same pilot had sexually assaulted her during a layover in Alberta, according to the lawsuit. It states the company did not discipline or fire him, nor take steps to warn or protect women scheduled to work with him.
> 
> Fired in 2016 after eight years with WestJet, Lewis has spoken out publicly about the “toxic” relations and “cowboy culture” at airlines and launched a proposed class action lawsuit against her former employer.
> 
> On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear WestJet’s arguments to quash the lawsuit, which accuses the airline of failing to provide a harassment-free workplace for women. WestJet previously failed to scuttle the action in the B.C. courts after arguing that the dispute belongs in the quasi-judicial realm...



More at link: 


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sexual-harassment-complaints-soaring-amid-frat-boy-culture-in-2/


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Plaintiffs and their lawyers negotiate a settlement on behalf of the class; that agreement is ratified by the court, and then anyone within the class definition may apply for compensation in accordance with the agreement.


Thanks for clarifying - appreciated.


----------



## CountDC (19 Jul 2019)

Thanks beyond.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2019)

[quote author=CountDC]So why is this suit against the CAF and tax payers footing the bill?  
[/quote]
It's infuriating our taxers are being spent on this because of POS CAF members and their weak and cowardly chains of command.

I get the CAF is responsible as an employer. Lets have some of those lawyers making the millions go after guilty members.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jul 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> One person brought up an interesting point.  If they were working at Company X and a victim of sexual misconduct the charges and suit would be against the individual.  Mr/Ms Y would be paying.  So why is this suit against the CAF and tax payers footing the bill?



The employer pays,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130702/post-1576399.html#new


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's infuriating our taxers are being spent on this because of POS CAF members and their weak and cowardly chains of command.
> 
> I get the CAF is responsible as an employer. Lets have some of those lawyers making the millions go after guilty members.



This is an election year and the Liberals are on the ropes. They just sprinkled half a B note over cranky BC. You can expect to see a lot more of this kind of largesse shoveled off the back of the truck this summer in the ‘War for the Headlines’.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2019)

This is not a recent thing; the lawsuit has been ongoing for a considerable length of time.  I don't think the timing is tied to the election cycle - in a majority government situation, you've got a 1 in 4 chance of something falling within the 12 months before an election.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is not a recent thing; the lawsuit has been ongoing for a considerable length of time.  I don't think the timing is tied to the election cycle - in a majority government situation, you've got a 1 in 4 chance of something falling within the 12 months before an election.



I'd really like to believe that but unfortunately I have way too many cynic bones in my body.

As an election issue though I think this cuts two ways; there's the liberals and socialists who see this as righting a major gender based wrong vs the conservative view of a massive government expenditure that is the result of government and civil servant (in this case military) misconduct that should never have happened in the first place. (Note in particular that DoJ was arguing against any liability on a perfectly valid legal principle until overruled by the government on the grounds of optics)

op:


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'd really like to believe that but unfortunately I have way too many cynic bones in my body.
> 
> As an election issue though I think this cuts two ways; there's the liberals and socialists who see this as righting a major gender based wrong vs the conservative view of a massive government expenditure that is the result of government and civil servant (in this case military) misconduct that should never have happened in the first place. (Note in particular that DoJ was arguing against any liability on a perfectly valid legal principle until overruled by the government on the grounds of optics)
> 
> op:



Yes!

And if they really wanted Justice with a capital 'J', they'd be pursuing these issues through the legal process and fixing the organization by - in some cases - punishing the guilty. However, that is messy and takes alot of time and thorough professional attention so it's easier to just pay people to 'go away and be happy', coincidentally, right before an election.  :


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2019)

More information on the case in Lawyer's Daily.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/13901/proposed-class-action-settlement-on-sexual-misconduct-in-military-includes-structural-changes-says-co-lead-counsel


----------



## garb811 (19 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes!
> 
> And if they really wanted Justice with a capital 'J', they'd be pursuing these issues through the legal process *and fixing the organization by - in some cases - punishing the guilty. However, that is messy and takes alot of time and thorough professional attention so it's easier to just pay people to 'go away and be happy'*, coincidentally, right before an election.  :


I'm confused. How have you seemingly missed the entire reason for Op HONOUR by this point?


> *Mission*
> 
> To eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF.


----------



## CountDC (22 Jul 2019)

found this to be interesting:

7.11 Eligibility Limited for Category A Payments
The Compensation Amount in respect of Category A is only payable to women, and to those who
identify as a LGBTQ2+ persons, in respect of incidents occurring after April 17, 1985, who
establish that they meet the criteria set out in Schedule “Q”. For greater clarity, the Parties do
not intend for persons who do not identify as LGBTQ2+ and who experienced Sexual Misconduct
on the basis only that they were perceived to be LGBTQ2+ to be eligible for compensation under
Category A.

So because my friend is gay and thus I was guilty by association and both discriminated and harassed he can claim but I can't.  In fact as I stayed in I went through more of it than he did as it followed me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jul 2019)

I happen to know of at least two cases where friends of mine who were straight males and were sexually assualted.

According to this, they won't be eligible for compensation.

 Guess that is fair...


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I happen to know of at least two cases where friends of mine who were straight males and were sexually assualted.
> 
> According to this, they won't be eligible for compensation.
> 
> Guess that is fair...



How do you read that exactly?  There are other categories that they would be eligible for.  If they were assaulted Cat A is not likely the right one for them to apply for. 

B1 or B2 maybe.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Jul 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> How do you read that exactly?  There are other categories that they would be eligible for.  If they were assaulted Cat A is not likely the right one for them to apply for.
> 
> B1 or B2 maybe.



Ah! Thanks! Did not realize there were categories to this thing.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Sep 2019)

And the province of British Columbia is now seeking standing in court.  Together with (at least) Ontario and Nova Scotia, they are seeking to recover health care costs related to the alleged misconduct of soldiers, sailors and aircrew.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-assault-canadian-forces-900-million-settlement-1.5291978


----------



## grayzone (29 Jan 2022)

CountDC said:


> Ottawa to pay nearly $1B to settle sexual misconduct lawsuits against Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> Have to admit reading comments on news pages can be interesting some times.    One person brought up an interesting point.  If they were working at Company X and a victim of sexual misconduct the charges and suit would be against the individual.  Mr/Ms Y would be paying.  So why is this suit against the CAF and tax payers footing the bill? Was the CAF supposed to provide something above and beyond Company X?
> 
> ...


current estimates: over 40% of claims are from men








						Over 40 per cent of military sexual misconduct class action claims are from men: Eyre - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Gen. Wayne Eyre said fixing the military's culture is vital because the world is "probably more dangerous now than it has been since the end of the Cold War."




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2022)

People are usually at their most generous buying something for their own benefit, using someone else's money.


----------



## Lumber (29 Jan 2022)

I'm not going to say they're lying, because you know, we should believe them, but applications to the suit for compensation required no substantiation, and a few people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money",


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jan 2022)

How would you have conducted substantiation?  A steward claiming sexual assault by a MARS officer - ask the MARS O if he was a rapist, and, if he denied it, deny her compensation?  A MARE claiming a MARS Capt(N) rubbed another MARS O's face in her breasts - if the then CAPT(N) denied it, you'd deny the MARE O compensation?  (Yes, I know, ridiculous examples.)

What would the level of effort be to validate over 19,000 individual claims?  To what standard?  To what cost?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not going to say they're lying



I'd wager some were. It looked even easier to submit a fraudulent claim than CERB appeared to be.

A nessary evil for actual victims to get some kind of compensation from an employer and system that utterly failed them.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jan 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> People are usually at their most generous buying something for their own benefit, using someone else's money.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jan 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not going to say they're lying, because you know, we should believe them, but applications to the suit for compensation required no substantiation, and a few people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money",


I mean, if they weren't able to jump on the CERB/CEWS gravy train, I guess this is the next best thing


----------



## grayzone (29 Jan 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not going to say they're lying, because you know, we should believe them, but applications to the suit for compensation required no substantiation, and a few people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money",


{people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money"}

...perhaps these people did not want to share the painful memories in a place they could be overheard by you. They may have minimized the impact of their experiences. It's almost as though you expect the candidness they might offer with their therapist. 

Take a step back; faced with traumatic situations, some of us make light in crude, off-side remarks. Take an accident investigator faced with another gruesome crash, you wouldn't take their off-side remark and jot it down for the crash report.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jan 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not going to say they're lying, because you know, we should believe them, but applications to the suit for compensation required no substantiation, and a few people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money",


So believe all victims only counts if they're not men?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Jan 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm not going to say they're lying, because you know, we should believe them, but applications to the suit for compensation required no substantiation, and a few people I heard mention that they had applied definitely made it sound like they applied just t get "free money",


And you still likely had plenty who didn't apply at all even though they would be eligible.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jan 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> And you still likely had plenty who didn't apply at all even though they would be eligible.


This is actually a great point to make.  Honestly, in some cases no amount of money is going to totally fix something either so it isn't really worth arguing about cost analysis when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> So believe all victims only counts if they're not men?



Why does it have to be one or the other – why can’t both views be correct and supported?  In order to be considered as a member of the Class Action you had to answer yes to the following question:

_“Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+”_

That was the criteria to be able to apply for compensation under the Class Action.

I am sure that there are some men who lied on the application to get some money. There were most likely some women who also may have stretched the truth to get money. There were also many, many legitimate claims that were filed as well.

The problem is that if the above is all true (and I believe it is), there are a number of issues that arise:


The application process lends itself to fraud as, to the best of my knowledge, there was no “check” or other way to verify if someone was not being truthful.
It becomes difficult to back up or believe any so called “facts” that are based upon the data that was collected form the applications.
Anyone who fraudulently applied received/will receive money they are not entitled to.
Fraudulent applications take away from some of the legitimacy and feelings of justice from those who were legitimately affected by this. Nothing gets people angrier than knowing that others are illegitimately benefiting from their pain and suffering.
The people who have legitimate claims under Part B and C of the Class Action (anything other than the $5k) have their claims settled based upon the money that is left over after the $5k settlements are paid. Therefore, the more fraudulent claims that are paid, the less money that there is to split up for the legitimate claims.

This is just my take on things. There are many angles to this, but in the end, the fraudulent claims take money and justice away from the legitimate ones and makes any “factual statements” about the data questionable at best.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jan 2022)

A billion?? Do you have any idea how many gender rights symposiums in South Sudan that could buy?


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other – why can’t both views be correct and supported?  In order to be considered as a member of the Class Action you had to answer yes to the following question:
> 
> _“Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+”_
> 
> That was the criteria to be able to apply for compensation under the Class Action.


Men could still apply; I think they fell under a different compensation fund or ratio.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> A billion?? Do you have any idea how many gender rights symposiums in South Sudan that could buy?


After the $250 million to train facilitators, $150 million to conduct a pre-symposium survey, $75 million to a company to crunch the data and $125 in advertising?


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> After the $250 million to train facilitators, $150 million to conduct a pre-symposium survey, $75 million to a company to crunch the data and $125 in advertising?





Jarnhamar said:


> Men could still apply; I think they fell under a different compensation fund or ratio.



Yes men could apply, but they had to answer "yes" to the question:  "Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+". 

 So if a man applied, in order to answer "truthfully", he would have had to have been a woman or identify as a woman at some point in time since 1985 or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+.

Also, all of the money comes from the same pot.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Yes men could apply, but they had to answer "yes" to the question:  "Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+".
> 
> So if a man applied, in order to answer "truthfully", he would have had to have been a woman or identify as a woman at some point in time since 1985 or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+.
> 
> Also, all of the money comes from the same pot.


Are you saying all of the men who applied (40% of the class action lawsuit) all answered yes to being a woman or LGBTQ2+?

cis heterosexual males were kept out of the class action lawsuit?


----------



## GreyWarden (31 Jan 2022)

I hope I'm comprehending this right... so forgive me if I'm not. 

But... money, is how they will handle serious issues like this? Was there any actual accountability done beforehand? Saying sorry without genuine action to do better is just pointless... but sadly, justice is hard to come by these days. 

Please believe a person if they come up to you and speak. Don't victim blame. Encourage gently to report something, but don't make them feel guilty for choosing not to. Going through it all is incredibly stressful.


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are you saying all of the men who applied (40% of the class action lawsuit) all answered yes to being a woman or LGBTQ2+?
> 
> cis heterosexual males were kept out of the class action lawsuit?



Yes that is exactly what the Class Actions terms says.  You had to answer YES to the question in order to apply - that is the terms of the Class Action.

So in response to your question - yes, heterosexual males could not apply for compensation under the terms of the Class Action.


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other – why can’t both views be correct and supported?  In order to be considered as a member of the Class Action you had to answer yes to the following question:
> 
> _“Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+”_
> 
> ...


the fol applies to many incomplete/misinformed posts:
...so many people are worried about fraud (without grounds beyond hearing people muse about 'how easy it would be') and end up missing half the info or miss-reading the info... 

"Current and former CAF members, and current and former employees of DND and the SNPF, CF, who experienced sexual misconduct in the military workplace may submit a confidential claim for financial compensation and apply to participate in a Restorative Engagement program." 

There are 3 categories members may apply for: A, B and C. 

I have to wonder how many of the commentators have even read the entire 22 page claim application, understanding that most may not have had reason to. 
  * Reading the application is still good SA on the cultural changes that have so far failed to take hold.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jan 2022)

…unless the Q-for-Questioning is interpreted as questioning why CIS-gendered males shouldn’t otherwise be considered as well…


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Yes that is exactly what the Class Actions terms says.  You had to answer YES to the question in order to apply - that is the terms of the Class Action.
> 
> So in response to your question - yes, heterosexual males could not apply for compensation under the terms of the Class Action.


That is incorrect. You are ignoring two of the three categories.


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> That is incorrect. You are ignoring two of the three categories.


Perhaps you can explain what you mean?


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Perhaps you can explain what you mean?


heterosexual males were not excluded from applying to the claim, though category B and C


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

Brief summary of the sexual misconduct claims:

CAF LGBT Purge Canada’s Cold War Purge of LGBTQ from the Military
“exposed LGBTQ servicemen and women were pressured to reveal fellow gays or lesbians in the service and given the “choice” to resign with an honourable discharge, or face court-martial and a dishonourable discharge. These practices continued through the 1960s, 70s and 80s.”
*
Sexual Misconduct Class Action*
Settlement agreement approved 25 Nov 2019
CAF class members defined: current or former CAF members who experienced Sexual Misconduct up to and including Nov 25, 2019

DND/SNPF class members defined: current and former employees of DND and of the Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces, who experienced Sexual Misconduct up to and including Nov 25, 2019

*Claims*
Cat A –1985 onward, women and LGBTQ2+ only, who experienced sexual harassment and discrimination
_As I understand it, this fills the gap between the LGBT Purge Settlement and 2019, because those not swept up in the purge, and those who served after, still suffered discrimination, harassment, assaults… Based on gender and sexual orientation (no straight males for this part only)_

Cat B1– sexual harassment and/or sexual assault in the form of unwanted sexual touching

Cat B2 – sexual assault in the form of sexual attack or sexual activity

Cat C – members for which VAC benefits have been *denied*
_As I understand it, this is to rectify past VAC claim denials, and bringing it in line with the changes to VAC policies enacted as part of the settlement.

      If you want to be Frank about it, I’ll be the boy named Sue and say that the threads on social media, including the posts here, show me just how ill informed *we all were* regarding the particulars of the Class Action Settlement. When the non-victimized find it confusing and convoluted, then how are distressed survivors meant to make sense of it, mostly in isolation, because of the still taboo nature of the topic. 
What a mess. We owe them better than this._


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> heterosexual males were not excluded from applying to the claim, though category B and C



Yes - you are correct about category B and C .  I should have been clearer on that - my post about the "illegitimate claims" was directed at the Category A compensation (the $5k amount) as it is the one that did not require any sort of evidence in order to file.

Category B and C require specific incidents in order to apply.  Could there be some illegitimate claims under B and C sure, but I would suspect that most of them would be under category A which was limited only to groups specified earlier.


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> the fol applies to many incomplete/misinformed posts:
> ...so many people are worried about fraud (without grounds beyond hearing people muse about 'how easy it would be') and end up missing half the info or miss-reading the info...
> 
> "Current and former CAF members, and current and former employees of DND and the SNPF, CF, who experienced sexual misconduct in the military workplace may submit a confidential claim for financial compensation and apply to participate in a Restorative Engagement program."
> ...



Just to be clear, not that I have to, but I am speaking as a person who HAS filed a claim and am referencing the information from the Class Action website.  I am not making this up - I am well read on this.  For all who are interested, here are some links:

Settlement Document:



			https://www.caf-dndsexualmisconductclassaction.ca/docs/en/CAF-DND%20Sexual%20Misconduct%20Class%20Action%20Settlement_Final%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf
		


Q and As:



			https://www.caf-dndsexualmisconductclassaction.ca/en/faq


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Yes - you are correct about category B and C .  I should have been clearer on that - my post about the "illegitimate claims" was directed at the Category A compensation (the $5k amount) as it is the one that did not require any sort of evidence in order to file.
> 
> Category B and C require specific incidents in order to apply.  Could there be some illegitimate claims under B and C sure, but I would suspect that most of them would be under category A which was limited only to groups specified earlier.


I suppose I'm an optimist.
I like to think no CAF member would stoop to fraud for 5k, knowing this is meant for those victimized.  
It would be like taking food from a food bank when you have PLENTY of means.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> I suppose I'm an optimist.
> I like to think no CAF member would stoop to fraud for 5k, knowing this is meant for those victimized.
> It would be like taking food from a food bank when you have PLENTY of means.


After all the "ethics" training the CAF has undergone over the past 30 years you'd think this wouldn't happen...right?


----------



## grayzone (31 Jan 2022)

futurepensioner said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other – why can’t both views be correct and supported?  In order to be considered as a member of the Class Action you had to answer yes to the following question:
> 
> _“Have you been a woman, identify as a woman or a person who identifies as LGBTQ2+”_
> 
> ...


*                               (for readers' SA)
All of the* *above only applies to Category A of the claim*. 

Category B1, B2, and C, are open to all members who were subject to sexual misconduct, regardless of gender.


----------



## futurepensioner (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> I suppose I'm an optimist.
> I like to think no CAF member would stoop to fraud for 5k, knowing this is meant for those victimized.
> It would be like taking food from a food bank when you have PLENTY of means.



Yes you would think, but unfortunately I believe these people do exists.

This was the intent of my initial post.  As someone who is a legitimate applicant, I appreciate those who are attempting to shine a light on the fact that there are some who took advantage of the situation for easy money.  My post was intended to show what the fraudulent activity means in the larger perspective.

I also wanted to indicate that just because there are people who want to shine the light on this fraud, it does not mean that they do not believe people who claim they are victims.  In my opinion, bringing to light the fraud could very well be seen as supporting the legitimate claimants. 

I guess it is just a matter of perspective.

Thank you to all who provide support to victims - I can say from personal experience that it is much appreciated.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Jan 2022)

grayzone said:


> I suppose I'm an optimist.
> I like to think no CAF member would stoop to fraud for 5k, knowing this is meant for those victimized.
> It would be like taking food from a food bank when you have PLENTY of means.


And yet there are still CAF members who regularly get CMd for fraud well under $5k....

I should preface this by saying it's a total outlier, but do know one person that was bragging they got 'free money' from this fund and was encouraging others to apply as well. They got absolutely pilloried for it, and really just cemented my decision to cut them out of my life, but sadly yes, those people do exist. If I had any real proof I'd report them as a fraud, but it'd be easy enough for them to just make something up anyway and they'd have no issue with lying, so not worth the hassle.

My perspective on this is that the vast majority have legitimate claims, and there will always be that one unkillable cockroach skuttling around in the dark. The 99.9% of claimants have legitimate issues that some money won't fix, and probably way more that will not put in a claim but would qualify. Any kind of process to 'screen' applications would cost a fortune and be likely brutal for the vast majority of applicants, so the very small amount lost to fraud is just part of the cost.

This settlement won't actually fix anything, but hopefully is helpful for the victims to get some kind of sense of closure, as the justice and administrative system are pretty crap at that, especially a he said/she said kind of scenario.


----------



## coolintheshade (2 Feb 2022)

grayzone said:


> I suppose I'm an optimist.
> *I like to think no CAF member would stoop to fraud for 5k, knowing this is meant for those victimized. *
> It would be like taking food from a food bank when you have PLENTY of means.


Ah, I won't hold my breathe. $$$$ brings out the worst in people i.e. greed. Current state of affairs last 2yrs isn't helping either i.e. economy, housing, grocery prices. There will be folks trying to pull a fast one, just like some people do falsifying their Force test, and other things. Bottomline, wherever there is money to be had, people show their true identity. For those that have been through a divorce, I'm sure you've seen what that 'sweet person' you thought you knew, turned to after all.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Feb 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> For those that have been through a divorce, I'm sure you've seen what that 'sweet person' you thought you knew, turned to after all.


Some times you don't have to go through a divorce.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Feb 2022)

Any kind of entitlement* program is likely to be subject to some amount of fraud.  Doesn't mean the program shouldn't go forward.

*I don't mean "welfare", but I do mean "something people meeting the criteria are allowed to claim".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2022)

Ottawa is not paying for anything. Not abuse payments, CERB or anything else. We are paying for it (taxpayers). He just makes the announcement and takes the credit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Feb 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Some times you don't have to go through a divorce.....



You mean?


----------



## AKa (3 Feb 2022)

As a participant, I'll offer what I have seen/experienced.

My initial reaction, was "hell no, don't wanna go there".  Didn't even see it as relevant to myself.  Several of my friends felt the same way.  

Some of us ended up participating and some of us found it an oddly triggering exercise wherein we acknowledged varying degrees of old hurts. Some with significant traumas refused to participate, unable to trust the govt not to use this an as opportunity to hurt them again.

For me,  it felt like a minor vindication.  An official recognition that some of the shite I experienced was not all right.  I declined the offered mediation process.  I did name some names and deliberately chose to not name others.  There does not appear to have been any movement to address or verify historic non-criminal misconduct based on  class action submissions.  I personally have no interest in seeing any of these individuals ever again but I do trust/hope they have progressed as human beings in the last few decades.

I'm sure there are a few applicants that have either exaggerated or made up their submissions.  And I doubt it will ever come to light.  But I do have an unsubstantiated believe that karma comes around for us all eventually.  Helps me sleep at night.

Cheers,

AKa


----------



## coolintheshade (3 Feb 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Some times you don't have to go through a divorce.....


...yes, just end up living like room mates until the kids grow up, and then split when there is nothing to hold you together. Many couples have been doing this in the last 2yrs because of the pandemic i.e. living miserably under house arrest.


----------



## coolintheshade (3 Feb 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> You mean?
> 
> View attachment 68454


Ahahahaha...just beat the crap out of your partner, and treat your staff like shit, and not move into your official residence. I'll pass thank you


----------



## medic65726 (2 Mar 2022)

Toronto woman files class-action lawsuit against Cadets Canada over alleged handling of sexual abuse
					

A Toronto woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Cadets Canada, alleging poor policies and a tolerant culture contributed to her sexual abuse.




					toronto.ctvnews.ca


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 May 2022)

Bit of a tweak here ...


> ... Class members have indicated that the duty to report poses challenges to the success of the Restorative Engagement program. The duty to report would require the CAF Defence representatives who have volunteered to listen, acknowledge and learn from class members’ experiences, to report incidents of wrongdoing, regardless of whether the affected person is ready or wants to report them.
> 
> DND/CAF acknowledges that confidentiality is a critical component of any restorative process, and it is hoped that this amendment will help build trust between all involved and enable all participants to have honest and open conversations. *This amendment does not limit a class member’s ability to report their own experiences of sexual misconduct; it removes the legal obligation of CAF members to report in the context of restorative engagement* ...


----------

