# Canadian soldier charged with feeding cannabis cupcakes to artillery unit during live-fire exercise



## Halifax Tar (20 May 2021)

Canadian soldier charged with feeding cannabis cupcakes to artillery unit during live-fire exercise
					

A Canadian army gunner is facing more than a dozen charges after she allegedly served cannabis-laced cupcakes to her unsuspecting artillery unit during a live-fire exercise.



					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Mills Bomb (20 May 2021)

This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less. 

I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.


----------



## Loachman (20 May 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less.
> 
> I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.



She was still in the DWAN address book as of a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less.
> 
> I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.



Well, it's a gunner, so....


----------



## Mills Bomb (20 May 2021)

This reminds of the guy who ran over a kindergarten teacher in the Ottawa river with his ski-doo, fled the scene, and still kept his job.

It makes you wonder how many people have released because they realized these bad soldiers essentially get to stay in forever and you're stuck being around them.

Who would possibly want to work with someone who almost got people killed feeding an entire battery drug cupcakes?

Some of these incidents are not minor mistakes.  At what point do we start releasing some of these soldiers that have embarrassed the entire CAF? This will surely make international military news.


----------



## brihard (20 May 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less.
> 
> I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.


I suspect they will await the court martial verdict before allowing the administrative measures/release to proceed. They may be required to do it that way. I could see them wanting to let the court have the option to punt her as a sentencing option.

EDIT TO ADD: But what a phenomenal ‘troops are dumb’ story. I will never stop marveling at those.


----------



## Kilted (20 May 2021)

There is a reason I always ask before accepting food from anyone, not that it would have made a difference in this case.


----------



## Mills Bomb (20 May 2021)

I understand there needs to be due process, but the member gave everyone drug cupcakes, is this really something that needs to take 3+ years to resolve? We've probably given this member over 1/4 million dollars since it happened in pay and benefits. Hopefully I am pleasantly surprised and we start to rid ourselves of these terrible soldiers (And really, what else do you call someone who drugs a gun battery during live fire?). 

I realize there's many reasons why things have gotten this ridiculous but it doesn't make it any less frustrating for everyone else.


----------



## dangerboy (20 May 2021)

There are reasons for the delays in this case, from the CAF JAG site: Cogswell C.H. (Bombardier), R. v. - Chief Military Judge



> On 24 January 2020, the Court Martial Administrator issued a convening order scheduling Bombardier Cogswell’s Standing Court Martial to begin on 24 May 2020 in Gagetown, New Brunswick.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 May 2021)

Basically, her CAF lawyer has challenged the Constitutionality and independence of Military Judges.

The delay is entirely on the Defence, here.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 May 2021)

This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. What a comedy of errors the CAF has had recently.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Basically, her CAF lawyer has challenged the Constitutionality and independence of Military Judges.
> 
> The delay is entirely on the Defence, here.


Most competent CAF Defense lawyers have started using this challenge. Another legacy from Vance, breaking our legal system with his CFOO putting the judges under VCDS.


----------



## trigger324 (21 May 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. What a comedy of errors the CAF has had recently.


I pretty much said that two weeks ago 👍


----------



## FJAG (21 May 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. What a comedy of errors the CAF has had recently.


The problem here is that the defence lawyers must make the challenge in the event that some future higher court buys into it. If you haven't made the challenge at trial then you can't raise it at an appeal later on as the issue winds its way upward. 

It would be better if the defence could merely say: "Judge I'm raising plea in bar number 14 with a zulu variation" and the judge could simply say "I deny the motion on the basis of decision # 4." But they can't do that so on it goes.

For all of you who wish to turn over CCC cases to a civilian court system let me simply say as one who has practiced in both that while the military system is needlessly, tediously slow, the civilian one is even worse because it is clogged with thousands upon thousands of cases.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 May 2021)

So much so, they are declining to prosecute clear offences of various non-criminal code cases, to ensure the criminal code ones get heard in time.


----------



## dimsum (21 May 2021)

FJAG said:


> bar number 14 with a zulu variation


Is that like the Picard Manoeuvre?  If not, can it be?


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2021)

Reddit claims it's a simple mistake: two batches, one with pot, one without, and she brought the wrong ones to work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 May 2021)

_rolls down window_  "But Officer, I thought this was the non-alcoholic stuff."


----------



## Remius (21 May 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This reminds of the guy who ran over a kindergarten teacher in the Ottawa river with his ski-doo, fled the scene, and still kept his job.
> 
> It makes you wonder how many people have released because they realized these bad soldiers essentially get to stay in forever and you're stuck being around them.
> 
> ...


Isn’t that hit and run case still before the courts?  I suspect that he would be released depending on the outcome.


----------



## captloadie (21 May 2021)

In these times of sexual misconduct allegations, the first thing that came to my mind was this was prompted by desire for revenge. While not condoning the actions, I would have at least understood the motivations of a broken soul.

If it is a case of grabbing the wrong pan of brownies, then I am all for punishing stupid, and wondering why there were no drug charges laid, given edibles were not legal then.


----------



## dimsum (21 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Reddit claims it's a simple mistake: two batches, one with pot, one without, and she brought the wrong ones to work.


But that happened in 2018, right?  Recreational use of cannabis wasn't legal until 2019...?

Edit:  No, it was legalized Oct 2018 but this was in July.  Same issue.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2021)

Speaks to mens rea - if it was an accident without intent, the administration of a noxious substance charges must fail (cc 245).

...must resist temptation to make joke about this taking place during the dog days of summer, since it happened in Gagetown, not Shilo...


----------



## ModlrMike (21 May 2021)

I've just read through a number of the cases, and most are making the 11(d) argument. The CF really needs to sort out how judicial independence relates to military judges, such that they retain their impartiality. I recognize that it is difficult to be subordinate to the CSD, and CDS, while remaining fully independent. I'm sure this will go to the Supreme Court at some point.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Reddit claims it's a simple mistake: two batches, one with pot, one without, and she brought the wrong ones to work.


Doesn’t matter. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

In other words, what she intended to do might make difference in sentencing, but won’t make much of a difference at trial.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 May 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> I've just read through a number of the cases, and most are making the 11(d) argument. The CF really needs to sort out how judicial independence relates to military judges, such that they retain their impartiality. I recognize that it is difficult to be subordinate to the CSD, and CDS, while remaining fully independent. I'm sure this will go to the Supreme Court at some point.


I would argue that creating military trials division of federal court, where all of the military judges are seconded to work under the supervision of the Chief Judge there, would largely solve the problem.

Since military judges are GiC appointments, the CDS is not involved. Make the appointment last until age 55, then they retire from the military but are free to continue as a judge anywhere else that will have them. Any judicial misconduct or criminal code misconduct gets handled the same way as they handle any other judge screwing up.

My 2 cents.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Doesn’t matter. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
> 
> In other words, what she intended to do might make difference in sentencing, but won’t make much of a difference at trial.



To the contrary, "administration of a noxious substance" requires mens rea, the guilty mind.  To prove that offence there must have been intent to make people stoned.  If it was an accident, those charges fail.  The 129s, on the other hand, likely would not fail for that reason.  (Though if DMP got too creative, they could have some other fatal defect...)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> To the contrary, "administration of a noxious substance" requires mens rea, the guilty mind.  To prove that offence there must have been intent to make people stoned.  If it was an accident, those charges fail.  The 129s, on the other hand, likely would not fail for that reason.  (Though if DMP got too creative, they could have some other fatal defect...)


It would take a judge to buy that story. I have sat through a few court martials: the judges weren't born yesterday.


----------



## CBH99 (22 May 2021)

I ended up discussing this at work yesterday with some colleagues who got a good chuckle out of it.

If it wasn’t a live fire, and in uniform - I could chuckle at it just being a silly albeit irresponsible prank.  Poor kid probably didn’t mean any harm, but was still poor judgement nonetheless.

Learn.  Grow.  Mature.  Outgrow the mindset from when it happened (3 yrs ago roughly?)  Hopefully this kid didn’t ruin her entire future with this.  

My colleagues had suggested perhaps with the amount of time that has passed since it happened, possible Charter issues, etc etc - she may end up walking away wiser (hopefully) and legally fairly unscathed.  🤷🏼‍♂️

How the system is supposed to work, and how it works, doesn’t always seem to line up.  So who knows.  It’ll be a fun one to follow


----------



## brihard (22 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> To the contrary, "administration of a noxious substance" requires mens rea, the guilty mind.  To prove that offence there must have been intent to make people stoned.  If it was an accident, those charges fail.  The 129s, on the other hand, likely would not fail for that reason.  (Though if DMP got too creative, they could have some other fatal defect...)


Further to that: if the straight crim code charges fail and the resulting convictions are all NDA, the accused may avoid a criminal record. Last I checked, criminal records for Code of Service Discipline convictions are dependent on the severity of sanction. That may have changed of course.

But yeah, men’s rea could make a _very_ big difference for the accused in this one.


----------



## Haggis (22 May 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> I understand there needs to be due process, but the member is *alleged to have given* gave everyone drugged cupcakes, is this really something that needs to take 3+ years to resolve?


FTFY.  No verdict has been rendered yet.


----------



## CBH99 (22 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Any judicial misconduct or criminal code misconduct gets handled the same way as they handle any other judge screwing up.


Quick question, and I don't mean to derail the thread at all.  Just a 'very brief detour' if you all will allow me...

But how does the system handle a judge screwing up in regards to either judicial misconduct or criminal code matters?  

From what I've observed (and while I am involved in investigations on behalf of Alberta SOLGEN, I am NOT a police officer and haven't had a ton of court experience yet outside of simply attending as a witness and leaving after) - most judges seem pretty untouchable?


----------



## Haggis (22 May 2021)

brihard said:


> Further to that: if the straight crim code charges fail and the resulting convictions are all NDA, the accused may avoid a criminal record. Last I checked, criminal records for Code of Service Discipline convictions are dependent on the severity of sanction. That may have changed of course.
> 
> But yeah, men’s rea could make a _very_ big difference for the accused in this one.


I find it interesting that there are no CCC or CDSA charges related to cannabis possession given that the alleged offence occurred prior to the Cannabis Act coming into force and the "zero tolerance" intent of of DAOD 5019-3 in force at the time. I guess it's possible that an AR may have been initiated pursuant to DAOD 5019-3 which is not public knowledge.


----------



## brihard (22 May 2021)

Haggis said:


> I find it interesting that there are no CCC or CDSA charges related to cannabis possession given that the alleged offence occurred prior to the Cannabis Act coming into force and the "zero tolerance" intent of of DAOD 5019-3 in force at the time. I guess it's possible that an AR may have been initiated pursuant to DAOD 5019-3 which is not public knowledge.


To get a conviction they would likely need a forensic drug lab to confirm the substance. That’s rare for cannabis. Not saying cannabis never gets sent off for that, but the juice is seldom worth the squeeze. Straight possession of cannabis is pretty chintzy. And in this case it’s possible it was all consumed.


----------



## Mills Bomb (22 May 2021)

Haggis said:


> I find it interesting that there are no CCC or CDSA charges related to cannabis possession given that the alleged offence occurred prior to the Cannabis Act coming into force and the "zero tolerance" intent of of DAOD 5019-3 in force at the time. I guess it's possible that an AR may have been initiated pursuant to DAOD 5019-3 which is not public knowledge.


When the Cannabis Act came into force the government also granted pardons for prior cannabis possession charges. There was no automatic removal of those criminal records, however, several hundred Canadians did apply for the pardon and most were granted. I believe this may be why there are no charges related to cannabis possession even if it was technically illegal at the time.


----------



## Haggis (22 May 2021)

brihard said:


> To get a conviction they would likely need a forensic drug lab to confirm the substance. That’s rare for cannabis. Not saying cannabis never gets sent off for that, but the juice is seldom worth the squeeze. Straight possession of cannabis is pretty chintzy. And in this case it’s possible it was all consumed.


There must have been some analysis done to determine the existence of the alleged noxious substance in order to form grounds for the s.245(1)(b) charge. Otherwise, the defence could raise " it was a bad batch of brownie mix".


----------



## FJAG (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Quick question, and I don't mean to derail the thread at all.  Just a 'very brief detour' if you all will allow me...
> 
> But how does the system handle a judge screwing up in regards to either judicial misconduct or criminal code matters?
> 
> From what I've observed (and while I am involved in investigations on behalf of Alberta SOLGEN, I am NOT a police officer and haven't had a ton of court experience yet outside of simply attending as a witness and leaving after) - most judges seem pretty untouchable?


You are dealing with very distinct issues:

1 If a military judge "screws up" with respect to a decision in the course of the matter of a case then the recourse is an appeal to the Court Martial Appeal Court;

2. If the judge becomes infirm, commits some misconduct, fails to perform his/her duties, involved in conduct incompatible with his/her duties or becomes physically or medically unfit and does not resign then the MND may make a request in writing to the Military Judges Inquiry Committee (Which is made up of the Chief Justice and three justices of the CMAC) to determine if the judge should be removed from office and make a recommendation to that effect to the Governor in Council. (see NDA s 165.32(1) to (8); and

3. If the judge commits an act which could be either a CSD offence or another offence under civilian law then charges can be laid against him and he could be tried either in a military court or civilian court as appropriate. (obviously the CSD offence currently has some possible issues as a result of the recent matters respecting the Chief Trial Judge which I don't believe have been adequately addressed yet.)

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Jul 2021)

Evidence lost in case of soldier accused of feeding cannabis-laced cupcakes to gunners, lawyer says​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lost-evidence-case-canadian-accused-drugging-gunners-field-exercise-1.6096693?fbclid=IwAR3z3_HGu6dDNAJZ2-4q-5VxSS2si5w5IWboRqUIoY06XtCERaRysGDQM28


----------



## trigger324 (12 Jul 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Evidence lost in case of soldier accused of feeding cannabis-laced cupcakes to gunners, lawyer says​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lost-evidence-case-canadian-accused-drugging-gunners-field-exercise-1.6096693?fbclid=IwAR3z3_HGu6dDNAJZ2-4q-5VxSS2si5w5IWboRqUIoY06XtCERaRysGDQM28


“Seventeen months required to discover it is disturbing to say the least…There is something lacking there. It could be a lack of expertise. It could also be incompetence, obviously.”


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2021)

trigger324 said:


> “Seventeen months required to discover it is disturbing to say the least…There is something lacking there. It could be a lack of expertise. It could also be incompetence, obviously.”


Case dismissed? FJAG - is this a possibility?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Case dismissed? FJAG - is this a possibility?



I will let FJAG give the final word on that as an expert, but:

If they have no way to establish _mens rhea_, no other proof outside hearsay and conjecture, and now a possible issue with lost or damaged evidence...

If I were a defense lawyer, I would be putting a strong case forward for dismissal based on a lack of evidence.

If they do go forward with it, I would love to be a fly on the wall to see the prosecution go forward without any evidence past he said/she said.


----------



## QV (12 Jul 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I will let FJAG give the final word on that as an expert, but:
> 
> If they have no way to establish _mens rhea_, no other proof outside hearsay and conjecture, and now a possible issue with lost or damaged evidence...
> 
> ...


If this is all accurate I don't know how this case even got to this point, the chain of command perhaps demanding the case move ahead because something must be done?


----------



## FJAG (12 Jul 2021)

IMHO you're looking at a case of a lawyer trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Essentially if what I understand is correct, a number of these muffins were handed out and eaten by various troops. Most of them threw their wrappers out into the garbage. When some people got sick (high) one of the senior NCOs gathered up some of the wrappers and kept them and later handed them over to the police when they began their investigation. At least one (possibly more) of the wrappers had trace evidence.

The argument now being put forward is that since all the wrappers weren't collected, that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice with Drapeau chiming in with his usual rant about the military police being incompetent.

Again, IMHO, the fact that not all the wrappers were collected means nothing. The fact that they have even one with trace evidence and a clear evidentiary link that she supplied these would be sufficient for a conviction as long as the charges have been properly drafted and the evidence in court links her to these muffins and that she made them. Everything else appears to me as fluff and smoke and mirrors.

🍻


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jul 2021)

If I were hearing the case, I would certainly conclude that if there is THC on one wrapper linked to the defendant, it is reasonable to presume that there is THC on all of them.


----------



## dangerboy (12 Jul 2021)

She must be paying a fortune in Lawyer fees, as (if it was the same lawyer) they initially tried to have the judge recused, since that did not work they are moving to this tactic.


----------



## FJAG (12 Jul 2021)

dangerboy said:


> She must be paying a fortune in Lawyer fees, as (if it was the same lawyer) they initially tried to have the judge recused, since that did not work they are moving to this tactic.


So you're saying that justice is already being done.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> If I were hearing the case, I would certainly conclude that if there is THC on one wrapper linked to the defendant, it is reasonable to presume that there is THC on all of them.



_puts on devil's advocate hat_

How are we to know these were the same wrappers that the cupcakes in question were in? What procedures were established to secure the scene to ensure the integrity of the evidence? Having someone "pull a wrapper out of the garbage" and hand it over to the MPs as evidence calls that into question. What guarantees are there that this WO didn't pull the ol' switcheroo? (I agree this is very unlikely, however, its a legitimate defense tactic). 

_takes off devil's advocate hat_

This Bdr may be guilty as the day is long, but if there are issues with evidentiary integrity, then its pretty solid grounds for dismissal. If the charges proceed, then its going to be a huge part of the defense strategy to call into question the integrity of the investigation and thus, limit the ability to claim beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a deliberate act.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2021)

Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted.


----------



## dimsum (12 Jul 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> If they do go forward with it, I would love to be a fly on the wall to see the prosecution go forward without any evidence past he said/she said.


If I had time off (or "personal development"), I'd see if I could go watch.


----------



## GR66 (12 Jul 2021)

I can see a possible case being made.

_"One of the soldiers who ate a cupcake and felt fine collected about five wrappers and gave them to the chain of command — one Warrant Officer Mangrove, according to the court document.

The base military police officer who attended the scene, Cpl. Benjamin Whitehall, obtained one of the wrappers from a soldier who got it from Mangrove and tested it for drugs. The test came back negative but later tested positive for traces of THC, according to both Kasper's court document and the response from military prosecutors.

The military police only discovered other wrappers existed almost a year and a half later, in January 2020, after a request from the accused's lawyer."_

Soldier collects "about five" wrappers and gives them to the WO.  WO gives one only of the wrappers to another soldier who then gives it to the MP.  MPs test the wrapper and it comes back negative.  Retest the wrapper and it now comes back positive.   None of the other four "or so" wrappers are tested to see if they come back positive or negative.  In fact they no longer can be found.  

Chain of evidence issues?  Initial soldier that collected the wrappers felt fine, but he did eat one of the cupcakes.  Where did he collect the rest of the wrappers from?  The garbage?  Was the garbage can tested in case it had traces of THC from some other source?  Why was only one of the "about five" wrappers given to the MPs?  How was the one that was turned over selected over the other ones?  Why didn't the WO give the wrappers to the MPs himself?  Where & how were they stored by the WO?  By the individual that turned the one over to the MPs?  Why the initial false negative test on the wrapper?  

Also, how did it come to light that there were additional wrappers?  The WO chose only to turn over one to the MPs and presumably he/she didn't mention that there were additional wrappers.  How did the accused's lawyer know that there were originally more than the single wrapper when they raised the issue in January 2020?

None of this of course proves that she didn't feed the troops laced cupcakes.  However with the initial negative result on the one wrapper that was handed over it could look like an opportunity was missed to cross reference that test with tests of the other wrappers.  It they all came back positive then it would look pretty damning.  But we'll never know because they didn't get tested.  Now we've just got one piece of evidence that passed through a number of hands before reaching the MPs that at first tested negative then later tested positive.  Reasonable doubt?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> I can see a possible case being made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm a Corrections type and we always bag, tag and record any evidence to preserve chain of custody. In my opinion  if I were  hypothetically the Assisting Officer for the soldier in question I'd be raising this issue with the defense. There never was a true chain of custody IMO.


----------



## lenaitch (12 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> Why the initial false negative test on the wrapper?


[/QUOTE]

Possible, depending on the type of test kit used and how it was used, particularly if it involves trace amounts.  A proper chemical lab analysis would be always be more accurate.

Breaks in the chain of custody are not, in an of themselves, fatal.  They just make the prosecution more difficult because certain assumptions are lost.  'What ifs' have to reach the reasonable doubt level.  If, for example, the court buys the argument that THC could have pre-existed in the garbage can from some other source, it might work.


----------



## Maxman1 (12 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (13 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> Again, IMHO, the fact that not all the wrappers were collected means nothing. The fact that they have even one with trace evidence and a clear evidentiary link that she supplied these would be sufficient for a conviction as long as the charges have been properly drafted and the evidence in court links her to these muffins and that she made them. Everything else appears to me as fluff and smoke and mirrors.
> 
> 🍻



Unless the standard of proof is a lot different in military courts than in civilian courts, I don't see how they get a conviction.

As I understand it, they are basing the case off of ONE wrapper that had traces of THC on it? And that none of the troops complaining of symptoms provided blood or urine samples that were analyzed for THC?

If I am understanding the case, I don't see how you prove beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you prove that it was the cupcakes that caused the issues when you only have traces on one wrapper? IMO it's actually to the defence benefit that the MPs didn't gather the rest. Also, how do you prove they were actually high and there wasn't something else going on non-THC related? A medic saying no heat injury would not seem to cut the mustard in a court of law.

All that said this case is insane. How on earth did this soldier think it was even remotely funny or a non-catastrophically bad idea to give troops at a live fire exercise cannabis cupcakes? How did the MPs not gather more evidence? Also how did it come to pass that NCOs actually believed their troops and didn't accuse them of malingering (well ... this one is probably explained by Gagetown changing a lot since my time there in 1999-2001 and also the difference between unit training and basic).


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (13 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> None of this of course proves that she didn't feed the troops laced cupcakes.  However with the initial negative result on the one wrapper that was handed over it could look like an opportunity was missed to cross reference that test with tests of the other wrappers.  It they all came back positive then it would look pretty damning.  But we'll never know because they didn't get tested.  Now we've just got one piece of evidence that passed through a number of hands before reaching the MPs that at first tested negative then later tested positive.  Reasonable doubt?



Sounds like reasonable doubt to me. With the chain of possession issues, defence could make a good argument that we don't know where the trace amount of THC came from. And since it appears none of the troops were tested to see if they actually had THC we don't know that cupcakes were the reason for their illness -- on a legal, beyond a reasonable doubt basis.

On a non-legal basis, it looks suspicious as heck and the poor judgement demonstrated by Bombardier Cogswell is astounding.


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2021)

Perhaps administrative action would have been the better route to go in this case.


----------



## MJP (13 Jul 2021)

Kilted said:


> Perhaps administrative action would have been the better route to go in this case.


I would be surprised if it wasn't already ongoing however they usually can't complete the Admin action (especially an AR at the DMCA level) without the discipline side being completed.

That said we may not likely never know the outcome on the admin side as that is Protected B info.


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2021)

Isn't this case getting pretty close to Jordan regardless?


----------



## dangerboy (13 Jul 2021)

Kilted said:


> Isn't this case getting pretty close to Jordan regardless?


If you look at the court martial record from when she applied to have the judge reclused: Cogswell C.H. (Bombardier), R. v. - Chief Military Judge the court transcript addresses this.



> On 3 June 2020, the court held a conference call to confirm new dates for Bombardier Cogswell’s trial. At the time, the court expressed a desire to get as much done during the summer months prior to the second wave of the pandemic. On 10 June 2020, during a follow up conference call, the parties finally agreed to the new trial dates of 23 November to 11 December 2020. These later dates were specifically chosen to permit Mr Kasper, Bombardier Cogswell’s new defence counsel sufficient time to become familiar with her file and to accommodate his personal court schedule. Prior to confirming these dates, the accused had to waive her paragraph 11(b) _Charter_ rights to accommodate the new defence counsel’s calendar and it was understood that the dates agreed to were beyond the eighteen month Jordan timeline established by the SCC. Any further changes to these dates would require a subsequent waiver.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2021)

Kilted said:


> Isn't this case getting pretty close to Jordan regardless?


No. As I understand things almost all of the delays have been Defence motions, which don’t count.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Sounds like reasonable doubt to me. With the chain of possession issues, defence could make a good argument that we don't know where the trace amount of THC came from. And since it appears none of the troops were tested to see if they actually had THC we don't know that cupcakes were the reason for their illness -- on a legal, beyond a reasonable doubt basis.
> 
> On a non-legal basis, it looks suspicious as heck and the poor judgement demonstrated by Bombardier Cogswell is astounding.


Sure, but that's not what they are arguing.  I'm not even sure if they are arguing the other wrappers should be excluded, just that someone allegedly messed up so the case should be dismissed.

Sounds like a bit of a crap argument, vice just questioning the chain of evidence, getting it thrown out, then asking for dismissal (assuming the crown didn't drop charges at that point).

I thought that she already admitted to actually making the cupcakes and getting the batches mixed up or something, so this seems like an attempt to dodge consequences via a technicality. At least this came to no serious harm; examples like Bill Cosby, the admitted serial rapist, getting his conviction quashed reinforce the separation between the legal system and the justice system.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jul 2021)

And just because you're reading about these "breaks" in the chain of evidence from a defense attorney doesn't make it so...


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (14 Jul 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but that's not what they are arguing.  I'm not even sure if they are arguing the other wrappers should be excluded, just that someone allegedly messed up so the case should be dismissed.
> 
> Sounds like a bit of a crap argument, vice just questioning the chain of evidence, getting it thrown out, then asking for dismissal (assuming the crown didn't drop charges at that point).



Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.



Navy_Pete said:


> I thought that she already admitted to actually making the cupcakes and getting the batches mixed up or something, so this seems like an attempt to dodge consequences via a technicality. At least this came to no serious harm; examples like Bill Cosby, the admitted serial rapist, getting his conviction quashed reinforce the separation between the legal system and the justice system.



Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.

As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.


----------



## CBH99 (14 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was always raised to cooperate with the police fully.  They ask you questions?  Answer.  It’s yes sir, yes ma’am.  Don’t break the damn law, and if the police ever call the house because of something I did? The legal system was a distant second to my concerns.  Mom and dad were rectifying this IMMEDIATELY.  

I had also always thought, while doing my diploma in criminal justice & then changing directions and finishing up my degree in forensic sciences - only people who had something to hide don’t cooperate.  Only people who had something to hide wouldn’t answer questions.  

After all, if you didn’t commit a crime or do what they are asking you about - why not answer their questions as helpfully as possible?  


And now…agreed (mostly).  Good idea not to talk to the police, and have a lawyer do it for you.  Not because you are trying to be a jerk or disrespectful.  But because even with the best of intentions, it may very well come back to haunt you.  Forever.  

Which does suck.  Most officers I know are awesome people and down to earth.  But the system works the way it does.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (14 Jul 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I was always raised to cooperate with the police fully ...
> 
> And now…agreed (mostly).  Good idea not to talk to the police, and have a lawyer do it for you.  Not because you are trying to be a jerk or disrespectful.  But because even with the best of intentions, it may very well come back to haunt you.  Forever.
> 
> Which does suck.  Most officers I know are awesome people and down to earth.  But the system works the way it does.



I hear you, and I was raised the same way, and it always feels a bit bad for me to give the advice I do, but I have seen enough good people screwed over my speaking to police when they shouldn't have and inadvertently getting themselves into a world of hurt that could have otherwise been avoided.

Most officers are great people, but they also have a job to do, and if they're talking to you they usually have heard another story from someone else and are treating that story as true. 

I am perhaps a but overly cynical/jaded based on my experiences as a criminal lawyer. 

I still tell my children (and clients) to always be very respectful to police but to politely decline to answer questions/discuss a situation if you are under investigation. In my experience, if police are investigating you, there is no talking your way out of the situation. If you are not a suspect then it is a bit of a different situation.

Or if you've done wrong and have no intention of fighting the charge, then own up to it. The two times I've been pulled over for speeding that's what I did. One time got a warning, other time got a reduced ticket.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Jul 2021)

CBH99 said:


> . . .  They ask you questions?  Answer.  . . .



Or one can take a different approach.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Good example of why I tell all my clients never say anything to police -- it will never help you. She handed them their case if she admitted that, I don't think the "getting the batches mixed up" will save her. It might raise a reasonable doubt on administer noxious substance since she didn't intend to administer it at that time ... but I'm sure she'd be cooked on some other charges.
> 
> As for Bill Cosby, his quashed conviction was no mere technicality. The Prosecutors acted in bad faith and it was a very serious abuse of process. The did a bait-and-switch saying the would not prosecute so that he would lose 5th amendment protection. Then, without 5th amendment protection he had no choice but to testify in civil court, then they used the civil testimony to get him. In Canada, s. 13 of the Charter is not dependent on the risk of prosecution and his statements in civil court would have never been admitted thus he likely wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Whether Cosby was guilty or not, that was a proper decision. The state cannot be allowed to play such dirty tricks it is grossly unfair.


I could be totally wrong, don't see it in the existing coverage. (edit to add; the admission that it was an accidental switch of batches)

For admitted serial rapist Bill Cosby, agree that it was an abuse of process and that it was probably the right thing to do, but after there were over 60 complainants with a long history of doing it, and him actually admitting to it... he's still an admitted serial rapist, regardless of whether or not his conviction stands. Hence legal vice justice system. All these people that are celebrating his release like he's innocent are deluded. Anyway, don't want to derail the thread to go on about admitted serial rapist Bill Cosby, so will just drop it.

Even if they find not enough evidence to meet the legal threshold to find her guilty, suspect the AR threshold of 'balance of probabilities' is pretty easy in this case. Understand they have to wait until the case is settled, but not feeling good about her chances.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (15 Jul 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Even if they find not enough evidence to meet the legal threshold to find her guilty, suspect the AR threshold of 'balance of probabilities' is pretty easy in this case. Understand they have to wait until the case is settled, but not feeling good about her chances.



Agreed, from what is reported balance of probabilities seems to be there.


----------



## shawn5o (16 Jul 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This is an incredible story. This happened two years ago and this member is still serving? I suppose it's not surprising given the CAF's reputation of retaining basically anyone, but still pretty shocking none the less.
> 
> I'm glad nobody was hurt. Hopefully the medical staff had a wide array of munchies available during the "recovery" period.


----------



## shawn5o (16 Jul 2021)

Mills Bomb said:


> This reminds of the guy who ran over a kindergarten teacher in the Ottawa river with his ski-doo, fled the scene, and still kept his job.
> 
> It makes you wonder how many people have released because they realized these bad soldiers essentially get to stay in forever and you're stuck being around them.
> 
> ...


Hi MB

Reminds me of 2 related type of incidents. The first one with 2VP Winnipeg - one company was at St. Charles Range and were bivouacked there. One of the Master jacks going round the area noticed a cigarette glare being passed back and forth inside a tent. Marijuana. I can remember how pissed he was marching them into the guardroom (I was RP). However, I don't remember the ending (facepalm)

The second incident happened at Camp Pleso, Zagreb (I think 1994). I had a couple of good buddies in the USMC MP stationed there. One of them, Lorne, told me one day that his buddies were always stealing his goodies from the care pkge his girlfriend sends. He later asked her to lace the cookies with Exlax. You know what happened next.

During the investigation, it was found Lorne was the owner of the treats.  He was sent back stateside a couple of days later. I cant remember any of the charges but it was fast.


----------



## Kilted (17 Jul 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Yes I agree it is a crap argument with pretty much no chance of success. Cases are thrown out for lost or destroyed evidence only "in the clearest of cases" where it would be abusive to continue ... such as if police purposely destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence. I also think that tactically it is a mistake to bring such questionable applications -- I think it's a waste of client funds, and negatively impacts the strength of the good arguments. I agree they should focus on the issues we've discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The other thing to remember is that there is a statue of limitations on the cases that occured in the states, meaning that they couldn't be prosecuted.  That wouldn't have been the case in Canada.

Also, I know one of the complaints occured in Canada, but I haven't heard of him being charged here.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Aug 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/gagetown-soldier-court-martial-verdict-cannabis-cupcake-chelsea-cogswell-1.6136436
		


Defense motion for acquittal denied, this should be interesting


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Aug 2021)

Judge allows wrapper as evidence in New Brunswick cannabis cupcake court martial
					

Military judge allows cupcake wrapper as evidence in court martial case of soldier who allegedly gave cannabis-laced treats to Canadian Forces personnel




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Cup cake wrapper allowed as evidence


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2021)

> She was operating a mobile canteen during Exercise Common Gunner



$170 a day to sell pop and chips.

Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> $170 a day to sell pop and chips.
> 
> Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?


Dude, do you even have to ask the question?


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Dude, do you even have to ask the question?


It used to be a way to keep people in PAT busy between courses, I feel it is a task that could be off loaded to civi's


----------



## dimsum (15 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> It used to be a way to keep people in PAT busy between courses, I feel it is a task that could be off loaded to civi's


...like these folks in the UK?









						Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Harris (15 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> It used to be a way to keep people in PAT busy between courses, I feel it is a task that could be off loaded to civi's


Ah, but civis cost SWE which is in short supply.  Plus then you then have to buy from CANEX (Mind you, you are supposed to give them first right of refusal anyhow, but I've seen that rule broken) or the civies will rat you out.  Civies will likely only have hours of work 0800-1600 so what happens after that? etc.....


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> $170 a day to sell pop and chips.
> 
> Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?


Yes.  Nothing new, out of the ordinary or contrary to regulations.



			https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/Library/PoliciesandRegulations/Corporate/Documents/aps110_e.pdf
		



> A-PS-110-001/AG-002 Morale and Welfare Programs in the Canadian Forces
> Volume 1 Public Support for Morale and Welfare Programs and Non Public Property
> 
> Casual or Part-Time Employment for Operations or Exercises
> ...


----------



## MJP (15 Aug 2021)

Harris said:


> Ah, but civis cost SWE which is in short supply.  Plus then you then have to buy from CANEX (Mind you, you are supposed to give them first right of refusal anyhow, but I've seen that rule broken) or the civies will rat you out.  Civies will likely only have hours of work 0800-1600 so what happens after that? etc.....


It could be a private contractor as well, lots of bases do that for their canteen areas and in high density areas like Carling there are even commercial vendors like Tim's and Starbucks. 

The real issue outside of those high density areas is getting someone to take that chance, plus the work to manage the relationship and contract to use an area. Some places it is easy because there is still a steady flow, others not so much.



Jarnhamar said:


> $170 a day to sell pop and chips.
> 
> Is this really a job for trained soldiers to be doing?


I think of all the folks some of the various regiments have running kit shops, pioneer shops, unit canteens full time and doing other non-core military duties (PPCLI Regt HQ for example).  Some of it good as they are tasks that would need to be done anyway except they would be secondary duties, others need a long hard look.

At one time in an unnamed PPCLI Bn the canteen was bigger than the gym and had a staff of 4-6 including a Sgt


----------



## dimsum (15 Aug 2021)

MJP said:


> It could be a private contractor as well, lots of bases do that for their canteen areas and in high density areas like Carling there are even commercial vendors like Tim's and Starbucks.
> 
> The real issue outside of those high density areas is getting someone to take that chance, plus the work to manage the relationship and contract to use an area. Some places it is easy because there is still a steady flow, others not so much.
> 
> ...



Dafuq?  At the flying squadrons I was a part of, the "kit shop" was in a storage cabinet and you had to track the manager down because half the time, they were flying or deployed, and may or may not have a deputy.  

The "unit canteen" was literally an honour system check-off sheet on a fridge.


----------



## ballz (15 Aug 2021)

Why would we use SWE or contractors when soldier time is free?

That's me throwing shade at our poor management practices, in case anybody doesn't catch the sarcasm.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Aug 2021)

On a ship, the canteen is run by volunteers, usually during meal hours.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> On a ship, the canteen is run by volunteers, usually during meal hours.


Yes and no.  They apply for the job and are interviewed and hired as canteen employees.  They receive pay and T4s.

The real money is in the laundry or bar tending.  It's all tips.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes and no.  They apply for the job and are interviewed and hired as canteen employees.  They receive pay and T4s.
> 
> The real money is in the laundry or bar tending.  It's all tips.


Ok, but you have to volunteer, first, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Yes.  Nothing new, out of the ordinary or contrary to regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/Library/PoliciesandRegulations/Corporate/Documents/aps110_e.pdf


Thanks for the links and info.


Putting injured soldiers in the canteen is terrible and the CAF needs to stop doing that. 

Reserves complain about not having enough people, and not getting enough training. Putting a qualified corporal in the canteen seems wasteful. 

Maybe I'm just biased after seeing canteen proceeds "that will go right back to the troops!" end up paying for departure gifts for RSMs and COs.


----------



## Weinie (15 Aug 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Thanks for the links and info.
> 
> 
> Putting injured soldiers in the canteen is terrible and the CAF needs to stop doing that.
> ...


That is just wrong.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes and no.  They apply for the job and are interviewed and hired as canteen employees.  They receive pay and T4s.
> 
> The real money is in the laundry or bar tending.  It's all tips.


That's one of those things that never happened up in the weirdroom (possibly the C&POs) where it's on a chit system. I bartended because it was kind of fun, and let me be social without having to have a lot of conversations sometimes.

Kind of weird to think of a canteen running during a live fire exercise; I can see during after the daily activities are done, but I don't really get a lot of the silly bugger SOPs.


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> That's one of those things that never happened up in the weirdroom (possibly the C&POs) where it's on a chit system. I bartended because it was kind of fun, and let me be social without having to have a lot of conversations sometimes.
> 
> Kind of weird to think of a canteen running during a live fire exercise; I can see during after the daily activities are done, but I don't really get a lot of the silly bugger SOPs.


Between fire missions there's a lot of sitting around shooting the breeze while you wait for the next one.

No idea what this canteen was like but they can be pretty informal and low effort things with a cooler or two for pop and a couple of boxes of chips and candy bars and hot rods (and cupcakes apparently).

Some batteries I was with would have the BSM's driver running it out of the back of the BSM's truck.

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Between fire missions there's a lot of sitting around shooting the breeze while you wait for the next one.
> 
> No idea what this canteen was like but they can be pretty informal and low effort things with a cooler or two for pop and a couple of boxes of chips and candy bars and hot rods (and cupcakes apparently).
> 
> ...


W Battery had a pretty slick, full time setup when I was a student in Gagetown (when dinosaurs roamed the earth).

They could extract $$$ every summer from hundreds of phase trg students (it was a fair trade- a cold pop to wash the dust out of your mouth on a hot, humid gun position was a small luxury). It also provided a service to the members of the Battery. The profits paid for the Battery Christmas Party and probably most of the PT gear and initial Regimental kit issue for the troops of W Battery. Not only did they have stand in the gunline, they had a 5/4 truck (nominally, the BSM’s)  tricked out with coolers/racks to bring the canteen to the field.

It also would not have bothered me if Canex had a 4 x 4 and drove around the training area all day selling stuff to courses...


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2021)

The company/squadron/battery canteens are not the problem. They're great and I fully support.... great for morale / providing stuff the CAF doesn't always provide, and the proceeds make things like a company Christmas party possible.

But units having a full-time, permanent canteen in the lines is a little different..... I can think of a lot of better ways to integrate the CANEX and the messes but no one is interested in running things well or fairly, it's all about their own little empires and interests,  soldier morale is always second to someone else's interests.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> The company/squadron/battery canteens are not the problem. They're great and I fully support.... great for morale / providing stuff the CAF doesn't always provide, and the proceeds make things like a company Christmas party possible.
> 
> But units having a full-time, permanent canteen in the lines is a little different..... I can think of a lot of better ways to integrate the CANEX and the messes but no one is interested in running things well or fairly, it's all about their own little empires and interests,  soldier morale is always second to someone else's interests.


This is going off topic, but it is really, really difficult to get Canex interested in providing retail services in unit lines or in the field.

Yeah- some units want to run retail empires/kit shops. Most don’t and just want to be able buy a coffee/donut without leaving work.


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> This is going off topic, but it is really, really difficult to get Canex interested in providing retail services in unit lines or in the field.
> 
> Yeah- some units want to run retail empires/kit shops. Most don’t and just want to be able buy a coffee/donut without leaving work.



Wasn't going to suggest CANEX has anything to do with unit line stuff or the field, but it's definitely straying off topic.


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> The company/squadron/battery canteens are not the problem. They're great and I fully support.... great for morale / providing stuff the CAF doesn't always provide, and the proceeds make things like a company Christmas party possible.
> 
> But units having a full-time, permanent canteen in the lines is a little different..... I can think of a lot of better ways to integrate the CANEX and the messes but no one is interested in running things well or fairly, it's all about their own little empires and interests,  soldier morale is always second to someone else's interests.


The canteens might be permanent but the staff isn't. There are always folks around who aren't part of the normal training cycle - injured folks on light duty, folks who've put in their six-month notice and have stopped giving a rat's ass and the like. Things like canteens keep them busy and at the same time provides a service to the troops who are working hard.

Remember that units spend most of their time in the lines and not in the field. The two services are pretty much integrated to go from one to the other.

🍻


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> The canteens might be permanent but the staff isn't. There are always folks around who aren't part of the normal training cycle - injured folks on light duty, folks who've put in their six-month notice and have stopped giving a rat's ass and the like. Things like canteens keep them busy and at the same time provides a service to the troops who are working hard.
> 
> Remember that units spend most of their time in the lines and not in the field. The two services are pretty much integrated to go from one to the other.
> 
> 🍻



I'm pretty familiar with how they're staffed and the garrison/field split. Not necessarily W Battery but in general. People end up in those jobs for multiple years sometimes, quite frequently. Often depends on if they're a "good guy" or not.

There is utility to being able to utilize someone whose got extenuating circumstances to still be part of the team and contribute, but sometimes it gets pretty out of hand.


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> I'm pretty familiar with how they're staffed and the garrison/field split. Not necessarily W Battery but in general. People end up in those jobs for multiple years sometimes, quite frequently. Often depends on if they're a "good guy" or not.
> 
> There is utility to being able to utilize someone whose got extenuating circumstances to still be part of the team and contribute, but sometimes it gets pretty out of hand.


Yeah. I'm against that type of stuff same as you. We're limited on PYs and they're put where they are supposed to be. TD that's really T is one thing but once you start making it a full-time thing then its just gaming the system.

I feel the same way about Class B's that go on year after year. It's just a way to get around PY limitations.

🍻


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> I'm pretty familiar with how they're staffed and the garrison/field split. Not necessarily W Battery but in general. People end up in those jobs for multiple years sometimes, quite frequently. Often depends on if they're a "good guy" or not.



Agreed. I know someone who was in the canteen for at least 5 years, no exaggeration. Honestly probably even longer I just never noticed. When someone took notice and attempted to move him back to doing his job he put in a VR. Canteen is a place to hide soldiers all too often. 

IMO it's detrimental for injured soldiers to go there because it puts them on display for everyone to see daily. Moves away from the spirit of keeping Injured soldiers closer to the front lines and their teams/buddies. 


In the reserves it always seemed like the same soldiers would get the canteen queen positions on exercises and over summer taskings. If soldiers were primarily "canteen staff material" then why keep them in the CAF? 

The soldier from this story didn't appear to have a high opinion of her based off comments on reddit from members (allegedly) from her own regiment. Lots of "no surprise" or "not surprised she'd do this".  
Is it beneficial for reserve units to retain soldiers who are earmarked for canteen duty all the time?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2021)

Cheaper to keep them in the Res F than in the Reg F...


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (16 Aug 2021)

In some Res Units the canteen was staffed on training weekends by troops who did not have trade that was required for the training plan to work. Troops  like Fin Clerks, Admin Clerks, or Supply techs.  Those trades would do the work on Friday night getting everyone out the door, pay sheets signed off,  Nominal roles typed up,  meal claims,  kit, weapons issued, vehicles issued. So if they were not needed for other roles such as  CP duty as runners or drivers to go get rations and cleaning up after meals become the duties of the those troops so the other training could be supported and run. So some of the troops were always on canteen duty or mess hall duties without fail.  Some of these duties required totally different hours of operation than the troops doing the training.  Breakfast is 0630, the breakfast runner is up and gone by 0530,or earlier depending on distance to the mess hall and the number of units training that weekend, standing in line to pick up,  to get the hay boxes washed, filled and back on site and set up for 0630.   So those troops are usually working different hours and might not be seen as much or as often.

I was fin clerk in a Res Inf unit and a Res Armoured unit. Not much need for me on Inf exercise, or Armoured exercise. Play enemy force if required or do one of many behind the scenes jobs. Troops got fed, got junk food and at no cost of bodies from the firing line so to speak.  

But I always believed using a troop from the unit that is suppose to be doing the training was a waste of man power.  If doing Inf training, taking a troop off the training plan to go get food, run the canteen or be the runner was a waste of training dollars.  That soldier should be doing something to learn more about his or her position in the Company, Squadron or Battery.  
Just my opinion


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2021)

Log troops do not exist to do your scut work.

Your ech needs to practice its work, including feeding your soldiers.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Log troops do not exist to do your scut work.
> 
> Your ech needs to practice its work, including feeding your soldiers.


Correct.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (16 Aug 2021)

They have to have the troops first . Not all units have the man power.

Reserve training

Regiment in Name Only has a Commanding Officer with usual Rank of LCOL

Staffed as if it has Companies, Company commmanders  Majors and odd Captain
Parades a maybe a bigger than normal platoon, 
goes on weekend training as an over sized section
so the HQ Company troops fill all the other jobs that come up because they are out of bodies.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2021)

If you bring out a section plus on exercise, combine exercises with other units.

And amalgamate your way to relevance.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> If you bring out a section plus on exercise,* combine exercises with other units*.
> 
> And amalgamate your way to relevance.



And there's the rub...

You are making the false assumption that 'dick measuring' won't get in the way of normal collaboration. 

I can't count the number of times when a proposed joint approach to exercises for the training year were immediately discounted by various COs because of their ego issues. Smart Bde Comd's don't even try to go there because the political in-battles aren't worth it.

It was even impossible to coordinate exercises between two rifle companies from the same unit. In any case, because COs & RSMs were rarely seen on exercise in person (have to go the Bde Conference/Mess Dinner don't y'know?) it was easy just to go do our own things anyways without any awkward overwatch or centralized control.

Occasionally we would stumble across another unit, usually Sigs or Log, that was occupying the same exercise area and it was possible to coordinate effectively, but this was a 'once in a blue moon' rarity.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> You are making the false assumption that 'dick measuring' won't get in the way of normal collaboration.
> 
> ...


Let's just say depending on how the army goes with F2025, some of those Ego's will no longer be required.

Seriously though empire building is the reserves worst enemy. To many times as a CSS unit have I seen tasks to other units go no fill because it would take pers away from our own exercises, even if those pers do not have an assigned role in said EX.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> You are making the false assumption that 'dick measuring' won't get in the way of normal collaboration.
> 
> ...



Maybe it depends on the units involved.

At least back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I remember many a joint weekend exercise with local units. Often, we would field a company where two platoons were Royal Winnipeg Rifles, a third platoon was Cameron Highlanders, and then the enemy force was Fort Garry Horse. I don't know much of what went on above me, but from my perspective as a platoon commander it seemed to work fine.

Not that there wasn't plenty of inter-unit rivalry and dick measuring in the armouries. But it seemed to come together on the weekends. Maybe all units involved just had really good COs in that era. No idea who things go in Winnipeg nowadays.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Maybe it depends on the units involved.
> 
> At least back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I remember many a joint weekend exercise with local units. Often, we would field a company where two platoons were Royal Winnipeg Rifles, a third platoon was Cameron Highlanders, and then the enemy force was Fort Garry Horse. I don't know much of what went on above me, but from my perspective as a platoon commander it seemed to work fine.
> 
> Not that there wasn't plenty of inter-unit rivalry and dick measuring in the armouries. But it seemed to come together on the weekends. Maybe all units involved just had really good COs in that era. No idea who things go in Winnipeg nowadays.



Like anything else, if it’s not required then people won’t do it, especially if they’re poor leaders.


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I can't count the number of times when a proposed joint approach to exercises for the training year were immediately discounted by various COs because of their ego issues. Smart Bde Comd's don't even try to go there because the political in-battles aren't worth it.


Shortly before I retired I planned a multi-unit rapelling and patrolling ex.  We had a helicopter.  We had HII and I had a commitment from three other units to participate.  The COS told my CO that I wouldn't get my HIIs or helicopter unless I guaranteed a certain number of troops would come out.  The G3 then directed me to work with the second largest Bde unit to make sure I met that benchmark.  When the boots hit the ground, I had my numbers - and then some - but the largest participating unit - whose participation was imposed upon me - put out the smallest number of troops.


----------



## Kilted (17 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> If you bring out a section plus on exercise, combine exercises with other units.
> 
> And amalgamate your way to relevance.


That's a bit of an exaggeration, but some units have a much larger authorized strength than others.  I don't know how other brigades do it, but most exercises involve at least three units and you can sometimes get a Battalion-minus out of that on good days.  One of the biggest issues with weekend exercises is that a good portion of a unit NCO's/WO's are already tasked to Battle School for weekend courses.  Take out others who are away on tasking or course themselves you can end up with a hog podge of the random leftovers.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2021)

I spent a nonzero amount of time tracking paid strength for the Army Reserve, and tracking paid trained strength.

Certain units were continually incapable of parading at anything approaching their auth strength, or anything close to effective.

An Army Reserve of 25k translates to a BTL of about 4k, with recruiters, trainers and administrators of another 1k, and five CBGs of 4k each, organized into 8 units.

That's 40 COs, plus 10 COs for BTL functions.  Or about 40 percent of the current numbers.


----------



## FJAG (17 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> I spent a nonzero amount of time tracking paid strength for the Army Reserve, and tracking paid trained strength.
> 
> Certain units were continually incapable of parading at anything approaching their auth strength, or anything close to effective.
> 
> ...



That jives with my math. The only difference is that I'd make 2 of those CBGs a CS and a CSS brigade of about 3 k each which would bump up the three remaining CBGs a bit. The numbers of each brigade go up a bit as well once H Svcs and the MPs add a few numbers for a Fd Amb and an MP platoon.

🍻


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2021)

Perhaps the PRes could stop trying to do level 3/4/6 training and just run good level 1 and 2 training....... Lord knows the Reg Force already spends too much too time on 3/4/5/6/7 and not nearly enough on level 1 and 2 which is what the soldiers want and need.

Anyway, I'm sure 2VP can't wait to support IDCCC this fall so they can train reservist OCs even though the PRes can't scrape together enough people to do level 3 training, so why exactly we're wasting time and money on training people to be dismounted company commanders I'll just have to guess.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> I hear you, and I was raised the same way, and it always feels a bit bad for me to give the advice I do, but I have seen enough good people screwed over my speaking to police when they shouldn't have and inadvertently getting themselves into a world of hurt that could have otherwise been avoided.
> 
> Most officers are great people, but they also have a job to do, and if they're talking to you they usually have heard another story from someone else and are treating that story as true.
> 
> ...


Well said.  Completely in agreement.

And same here.  I’ve been pulled over twice, and both times I just apologized, said I actually didn’t have a good excuse to be driving that fast, and each time I was let off. 

I was never driving dangerously.  And usually in small town/highway.


I still chuckle…one day I was driving home from a job interview that didn’t go badly, but didn’t go great.  It was a two hour drive on the highway.  Traffic was light. 

I was going about 130km and the limit was 110km.  Red car.  The town I had just passed was mostly seniors, and nobody else was even going 110km.  I stood out.  (This was also maybe 12 to 15 years ago)

I saw the red & blue lights flashing behind me.  Waaaayyyyyyy behind me.  Like 2km behind me or further.  So…I pulled over.  Turned off my vehicle.  Had all of my documents ready for the officer who eventually pulled in behind me, about a minute or two later. 

After asking the usual questions, he asked…”Why are you pulled over?”    I told him I had seen his lights on way way back and I knew he was coming for me as I was the only one speeding. 

He chuckled.  We talked.  I explained I just wanted to go home and call it a day, wasn’t happy about an interview, etc.  But, I WAS speeding and that honestly wasn’t a good excuse.  He just said he appreciated the honesty, to slow it down a bit, and drive safe.


daftandbarmy said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> You are making the false assumption that 'dick measuring' won't get in the way of normal collaboration.
> 
> ...


reading this, I continue to realize how lucky I was to be with a smaller unit that had a pretty solid CoC.  A very under appreciated CoC.  

Our RSM would be at almost every exercise.  A very down to earth guy, solid leader.  He wouldn’t micromanage or get in the way, but rather just observe the behaviour & competency of the troops.  When there was downtime he would either give tips and pointers, or just banter.  

If it was a training day in the armoury, on a weekend, he would pop in.  Check on things.  And leave.  


He would do the odd RSM thing, such as randomly jack you up for ‘walking across the f**king parade square!’  But he’s an RSM, I think it was more of a biological function than anything else.  

He also had a pretty good sense of humour.  Once brave enough, we would taunt him with things like “Hey warrant, can I walk across the parade square yet, or is that still a no-no?” 😈  In which he would chuckle while telling us to go screw ourselves.  


We didn’t do many exercises with other units, but that was mostly due to how busy we were with deployments & such.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2021)

We’ve done combined exercises over the years, some were good most were awful.  A good chunk were only designed to train and exercise higher headquarters and the troops were not the main training audience.   So motivating them to come out when they were more of an after thought on combined exercises was difficult.  Also lead units would tend to favour their own unit or troops for the more interesting parts of the ex.

My opinion is anecdotal though.


----------



## FJAG (18 Aug 2021)

Remius said:


> We’ve done combined exercises over the years, some were good most were awful.  A good chunk were only designed to train and exercise higher headquarters and the troops were not the main training audience.   So motivating them to come out when they were more of an after thought on combined exercises was difficult.  Also lead units would tend to favour their own unit or troops for the more interesting parts of the ex.
> 
> My opinion is anecdotal though.



Your comment about "a good chunk were only designed to train and exercise higher headquarters" made me reflect.

During my early years in the Reg F we had about three combined arms TEWTs (Tactical Exercises Without Troops in case that terminology has gone out of favour) and about the same number of CPXs. That's not very many over a period of twelve years. In my last thirty years, when I became more involved in reserve matters, we had even less.

I would think that CAXs have pretty much replaced the CPX but suppose that to a certain extent the added administrative complexity of organizing and funding those probably limits how many and on what scale the Army runs those.

I've always felt I learned more about combined arms operations on those few TEWTs standing on a knoll chewing a blade of grass while my combined arms syndicate and I puzzled out a particular problem particulalry if on the following brigade concentration we actually practiced that scenario with troops and gear. Unfortunately the vast bulk of my time in those days was taken up tossing 33 and 93 pound chunks of high explosive at innocent spinneys and copses which, while emotionally satisfying, taught us very little about combined arms operations.

🍻


----------



## MH2022 (18 Aug 2021)

The wheels of justice turn slow but seems to finally given some justice to my friends who were affected. 










						N.B. soldier found guilty of distributing cannabis-laced cupcakes to Armed Forces
					

A New Brunswick soldier accused of serving cannabis-laced cupcakes to a group of Canadian Armed Forces members taking part in a 2018 live-fire training exercise was found guilty Wednesday on nine charges.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> Perhaps the PRes could stop trying to do level 3/4/6 training and just run good level 1 and 2 training....... Lord knows the Reg Force already spends too much too time on 3/4/5/6/7 and not nearly enough on level 1 and 2 which is what the soldiers want and need.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure 2VP can't wait to support IDCCC this fall so they can train reservist OCs even though the PRes can't scrape together enough people to do level 3 training, so why exactly we're wasting time and money on training people to be dismounted company commanders I'll just have to guess.



Exactly.

'Train to excite' is a waste of time and resources imposed by those from above who have no idea what really motivates their troops. Soldiers (and Officers) get excited when the training is rooted in the basics, well run and resourced, progressive, and connects with a higher purpose/ end goal where they get to test and improve their skills in a meaningful way. Officers & SNCOS getting any training at all, outside of their mandatory career courses, during the year would be a massive novelty and much appreciated, I'm sure.

And with that, I'm assuming I've managed to help thoroughly derail a thread that was initially all about Hash Brownies


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Aug 2021)

Redirect Notice
		


Verdict is in, Guilty on all charges, sentencing Nov 16th.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Aug 2021)

IMHO, proper result.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> . . .  initially all about Hash Brownies



Get with the times, brownies are so 1960s . . . cupcakes were the bombardier's edible of choice.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Aug 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> IMHO, proper result.


And I agree. Not that my opinion really matters.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (20 Aug 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> Verdict is in, Guilty on all charges, sentencing Nov 16th.



Well, clearly I was wrong about the strength of the case. I notice that at the bottom of the article it references two statements she gave to the MPs, so I suspect that that is what "cooked her goose" because otherwise it would seem incredibly difficult to prove who was responsible for the cannabis given the number of people involved in an exercise like that.


EDIT TO ADD: It was actually this article posted by @TheMattHan that referenced statements given to Military Police.



ModlrMike said:


> IMHO, proper result.



Judging a case based on media reporting is always a dangerous prospect. We have no idea what the evidence actually tendered in court actually was. I'm going to assume that the verdict was just until an appeal court says otherwise, but really hard to form an opinion with the very scant information given by the press.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Nov 2021)

Sentencing hearing told of lasting impact on soldiers who were served cannabis cupcakes
					

A sentencing hearing for a New Brunswick soldier found guilty of serving cannabis-laced cupcakes to her comrades during a 2018 live-fire training exercise has heard of the lasting impact on those who ate them.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca
				




The saga nears it's conclusion


----------



## CountDC (17 Nov 2021)

well that excuses it - ptsd and mood disorder is a perfect excuse......     send her back to canteen queen.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Nov 2021)

Crown seeks 1 year in jail for soldier who served cannabis cupcakes to colleagues  | Globalnews.ca
					

A sentencing hearing for the 28-year-old soldier is into its second day at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown in New Brunswick.




					globalnews.ca
				




Submissions completed, prosecution argues the defense has no evidence her mental health influenced her actions, is asking for 1 year in jail, and not a suspended sentence. The decision will be handed down Friday.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Crown seeks 1 year in jail for soldier who served cannabis cupcakes to colleagues  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A sentencing hearing for the 28-year-old soldier is into its second day at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown in New Brunswick.
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Nov 2021)

Canadian soldier sentenced to jail in first-of-its-kind cannabis cupcake case
					

A Canadian soldier will spend up to 30 days in jail for drugging her comrades with cannabis-laced cupcakes during a live-fire training exercise in 2018.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca
				




And the sentence is in, 30 days in jail, reduction in rank, and dismissal. I think more jail time should of happened but what's dine is done


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Nov 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Canadian soldier sentenced to jail in first-of-its-kind cannabis cupcake case
> 
> 
> A Canadian soldier will spend up to 30 days in jail for drugging her comrades with cannabis-laced cupcakes during a live-fire training exercise in 2018.
> ...


Does the "up to" 30 days in jail mean there's a chance she'll spend less?


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2021)

Should had sent her to DB then dismissal with disgrace.


----------



## kratz (19 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Should had sent her to DB then dismissal with disgrace.



Either way, QR&O 15.01 Release remains item 1a:



Sentenced to Dismissal.
where sentenced by court martial to dismissal or dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service;


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Does the "up to" 30 days in jail mean there's a chance she'll spend less?


The sentence could always be suspended.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> The sentence could always be suspended.


It could also be served on weekends, if in a civvie jail.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Nov 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> It could also be served on weekends, if in a civvie jail.


Even at club Ed, if she applies for and is granted serving her sentence intermittently.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Even at club Ed, if she applies for and is granted serving intermittently


I believe 30 and under used to be in local cells. Anything over was SDB. I don't  know anymore. Back in the 90s, we had one of the guys in my reserve unit, spend his time in the London OPP cells after his military trial.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Nov 2021)

14 days or more got you a trip to the digger once upon a time.


----------



## FJAG (19 Nov 2021)

Just out of curiosity, why is it every time I see a picture of her going into or out of the court she's wearing civilian clothing?

Anybody with the info?


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> Just out of curiosity, why is it every time I see a picture of her going into or out of the court she's wearing civilian clothing?
> 
> Anybody with the info?


Likely medical employment limitations that preclude wearing of the uniform.


----------



## CBH99 (20 Nov 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Crown seeks 1 year in jail for soldier who served cannabis cupcakes to colleagues  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A sentencing hearing for the 28-year-old soldier is into its second day at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown in New Brunswick.
> ...


That’s quite the sentence the crown had argued for.  And while I _personally_ wouldn’t go that far, I’m in no way suggesting that request isn’t without merit. 

But “up to 30 days in jail” is quite the leniency compared to what the crown had asked for.  

Was the crown being unreasonable in the request?  Were they asking for significantly more than they knew they would get, to try to maximize what they actually would get?  

Obviously time has passed, massive blocks to many potential careers, no intend to harm (although under the circumstances, damn lucky), life lessons & growing up has happened, hence prison may not be the best place for her, etc etc. 

Just noting out loud I guess - big difference between what was requested by the crown, and the actual sentence handed down.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2021)

MJP said:


> Likely medical employment limitations that preclude wearing of the uniform.


Being fatter than a small bus?


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Nov 2021)

CBH99 said:


> That’s quite the sentence the crown had argued for.  And while I _personally_ wouldn’t go that far, I’m in no way suggesting that request isn’t without merit.
> 
> But “up to 30 days in jail” is quite the leniency compared to what the crown had asked for.
> 
> ...


Judge may of factored her current mental health vs the impact of long term incarceration might have on it.


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Being fatter than a small bus?


If that was the case then about a good 5-10% of the CAF would never wear a uniform.  Morbid obesity is a matter of pride for some.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2021)

MJP said:


> If that was the case then about a good 5-10% of the CAF would never wear a uniform.  Morbid obesity is a matter of pride for some.


Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.


Not category, MELs.

It is very common in mental health situations where the wearing of the uniform could trigger or cause some undesired reaction on the part of the mbr.  In this case do you force the issue and make someone wear a uniform giving them leverage after the trial or do you approach it pragmatically? In any case it may be moot in terms of "forcing" as it is a military trial within the CAF sphere, then likely MO assigned MELs still apply.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2021)

MJP said:


> Not category, MELs.
> 
> It is very common in mental health situations where the wearing of the uniform could trigger or cause some undesired reaction on the part of the mbr.  In this case do you force the issue and make someone wear a uniform giving them leverage after the trial or do you approach it pragmatically? In any case it may be moot in terms of "forcing" as it is a military trial within the CAF sphere, then likely MO assigned MELs still apply.


I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
   Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
> Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...


Well, she won’t be for long…


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> I should have got a MEL that allowed me to go streaking.
> Color me in the less sensitive crowd - but if you can't wear a uniform due to a MEL - its probably time that you are not longer in the CAF...


No one wants to see you streaking....like literally no one (maybe your wife)  🤮

I understand your point and in most cases those with no uniform MELs are likely on their way out medically. However, if a no uniform MEL allows a soldier to overcome a mental issue and become a productive CAF mbr again then so be it.

While I think CFHS is a rogue beast that needs to be reined in, it is not their medical practices I take issue with rather their organization writ large. We have come a long way from essentially ostracizing  folks for seeking medical care.  We still have a stigma around ppl seeking mental health care but it is getting better so I would hate to regress because we wanted to see someone in uniform at their CM.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Honestly since a uniform is effectively clothes - I really have trouble fathoming what sort of medical category would exist that would preclude a member from not wearing it.


She'll spend the next 30 days in coveralls, anyway.


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2021)

MJP said:


> No one wants to see you streaking....like literally no one (maybe your wife)  🤮
> 
> I understand your point and in most cases those with no uniform MELs are likely on their way out medically. However, if a no uniform MEL allows a soldier to overcome a mental issue and become a productive CAF mbr again then so be it.
> 
> While I think CFHS is a rogue beast that needs to be reined in, it is not their medical practices I take issue with rather their organization writ large. We have come a long way from essentially ostracizing  folks for seeking medical care.  We still have a stigma around ppl seeking mental health care but it is getting better so I would hate to regress because we wanted to see someone in uniform at their CM.


I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.

In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.

Seriously. The Army is an organization that's meant to go fight in the most difficult conditions imaginable and I can see caring very, very generously for those who come back damaged by what they went through but when folks get all fragile during the vagaries of every day life and become undeployable/unemployable ... well ...

🍻


----------



## MJP (20 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.
> 
> In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.
> 
> ...


That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death. Many companies in private industry have yet to come aboard but that is because taking care of your folks costs money.

Regardless I think all people need to be taken care of regardless of what they faced and allowing folks an opportunity to get better.  This includes better training for both employees and managers in how to deal with stress  so they don't become casualties in the first place. I have no doubt that in some cases there is abuse but having a framework for employees along with good leaders and managers that recognize and work within that framework makes work less stressful overall


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2021)

> Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.





MJP said:


> That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death.



What choice did they have?

Ontario did not pass PTSD legislation for 9-1-1  Responders until 2016.


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2021)

MJP said:


> That Boomer era work until you die and don't complain is dying a slow death. Many companies in private industry have yet to come aboard but that is because taking care of your folks costs money.
> 
> Regardless I think all people need to be taken care of regardless of what they faced and allowing folks an opportunity to get better.  This includes better training for both employees and managers in how to deal with stress  so they don't become casualties in the first place. I have no doubt that in some cases there is abuse but having a framework for employees along with good leaders and managers that recognize and work within that framework makes work less stressful overall


I'm afraid that the vast majority of businesses are small ones that have neither the time nor the inclination to become the caretakers of the nation. Yes, people with physical and mental health problems need to be taken care of but why should that come through a relationship as tenuous as an employment relationship rather than family or the mental health system? Where the employment relationship causes the issue then, of course, the employment structure should deal with that but through either a public or private health care insurance system. To make an employer directly financially responsible for the ongoing care of a non productive employee is a recipe for destroying what is otherwise a viable business.

Yeah. We "Boomers" do tend to look askance at "Generation X" and the "Millennials" probably the way the "Greatest Generation" and the "Silent Generation" looked askance at us boomer hippies. That's every generation's lot in life. At the same time we need an overarching policy as to who cares for the "stresses-out" and injured including those who remain on government payrolls for years on end leaving their positions either empty and covered by overworking coworkers, or filled (and therefore double payed) by a temp. The logical choice is a workers insurance-like system.

🍻


----------



## lenaitch (20 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Does the "up to" 30 days in jail mean there's a chance she'll spend less?


I had the same thought.  How does an "up to" sentence work in the military context?  In the civilian justice system, sentences are definitive, although actual incarceration periods are typically shorter.


----------



## lenaitch (20 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> I have to admit that when I came to Ottawa to work for three years I was flabbergasted by the number of personnel, both civilian and military, that were off on "stress leave". Based on what my son-in-law tells me the RCMP is in much the same way but at least for many of them its because their jobs has put them into having to deal some very horrific scenarios.
> 
> In my civilian practice that was hardly a thing and maybe that's because we were heartless bastards or maybe its because we didn't generate stress amongst our employees (and I doubt that's true) or maybe its because the employment insurance programs aren't as generous and expansive as the public purse is.
> 
> ...


Most major police services are the same.  I have heard the number off on extended leave with my former service and recall being quite astounded.  In addition to the ones that are on leave, there are also those who are working, but with accommodations that make me scratch my head (or scream).  No doubt some psychologist could put a bow on it but I can't.  I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument.  Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members.  Sure, they're busy and staffing is an issue, but my generation got to do it with a very basic and sometimes dodgy radio system, closed holsters and often without backup.  They have 12-hour shifts yet complain they are burned out.  Perhaps there is such a thing of 'generational resilience' (which the 'greatest generation' had in spades and puts us all to shame).  Perhaps they are hiring the wrong recruits.  The message is 'you can be (chief)', 'you can help people', you can work with kids'; which is all great, but I wonder if the the realities of street policing (and military service) comes as surprise to many.  Perhaps it is a training or probationary evaluation issue.

In the context of the thread, I don't enough of what she apparently went through to comment, but at least the defence called a medical professional to testify to sentencing.  Too often now, PTSD seems to be just tossed out without established foundation or sometimes even nexus.  It seems to have become the go-to rationale when behavior is called to account - judicially and otherwise.  Perhaps we need another diagnostic category.  It seems awfully broad when the same diagnosis is used to explain a reaction to your cat dying or loosing your boyfriend, all the way up to seeing a colleague turned into mist.  I'm not diminishing what she might have experienced, and its insidious impact, but I glad she was ultimately held accountable.  Short of diminished capacity, we are all ultimately accountable for our actions, regardless of the why.


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument.  Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members.


Stress Leave was unheard of.

Now, it's taken off like wildfire.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Nov 2021)

mariomike said:


> Stress Leave was unheard of.
> 
> Now, it's taken off like wildfire.


I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates.  If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.”  We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates.  If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.”  We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.


Glad to hear that.


----------



## Furniture (20 Nov 2021)

mariomike said:


> Stress Leave was unheard of.
> 
> Now, it's taken off like wildfire.


Drinking yourself to death, and abusing your family was quite popular in the "good old days"... 

How many people came home from the world wars, and inflicted their mental health issues on their families, because mental health wasn't taken seriously back then?


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2021)

Furniture said:


> How many people came home from the world wars, and inflicted their mental health issues on their families, because mental health wasn't taken seriously back then?



I'm not arguing with you about "the world wars", Furniture.

I was replying to this,


lenaitch said:


> I'm not sure I fully buy the "horrific scenario" or on-the-job exposure argument.  Those situations long pre-date the recent generation of members.





mariomike said:


> What choice did they have?
> 
> Ontario did not pass PTSD legislation for 9-1-1  Responders until 2016.



I'm not defending the pre-2016 times. I didn't make the rules. That's the way it was. It's certainly not that way anymore, from what I am told.


----------



## lenaitch (20 Nov 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates.  If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.”  We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.


Agree.  It might be different in the CF medical community, where one would think they are more tuned to occupational stress.  In the civilian world, it is often the individual's GP who makes that assessment, and their experience might not be extensive.  The employer does have the ability to ask for additional and specialized assessment, but often they don't want to be seen as not being supportive.  If the stress is job-related, obviously the employer has a role in accommodation/mitigation, but it is not the sole player.


----------



## brihard (20 Nov 2021)

I hate the term 'stress leave'. It's sick leave. Physical or mental, an illness precludes you from being able to work. Full disclosure: I burned out hard this time last year and was off for four weeks for exactly this reason, and I'm currently walking on eggshells to avoid it happening again.

To go off on sick leave that would be characterized as 'stress leave', you're getting an opinion from a licensed medical clinician that you're ill, and that for that reason you cannot presently work. Depending on the organization in question, there will be a variety of different configuration of short terma nd long term benefits for illness. In CAF and the RCMP, you simply have indeterminate sick leave while your case is managed by the respective organization's health services, and you potentially end up on a permanent medical category with restrictions, or wholly unfit for further service and you transition out. Other emergency services employers will have some sort of short term sick leave, and then you generally transition to a private insurance company that has some sort of long term disability plan. If you can't come back to your substantive job within a couple years, the goal shift to can you be gainfully employable at all, and you have to work towards that to protect your income replacement benefits. Or, if it's work related you might fall under worker's comp.

As to where this degree of stress comes from? It can be anything from single acute or repeated chronic traumatic exposure, to long term overwork, harassment in the workplace, or reasons wholly unrelated to work.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the rights under human rights legislation to not be discriminated against on the grounds of disability. Anxiety, depression, PTSD or what have you are disabilities, and employers have the duty to accommodate same to the point of undue hardship. Coverage under sick leave and long term disability simply makes sense; those are all set up to try to facilitate the successful recovery of the employee and their eventual return to the workplace.


----------



## Furniture (21 Nov 2021)

mariomike said:


> I'm not arguing with you about "the world wars", Furniture.
> 
> I was replying to this,
> 
> ...


Fair enough, what was your point then?

Back in the day people ignored mental health, it's hardly something to harken back to... 

Unless you meant something entirely different by "it's taken off like wildfire".


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Nov 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I trust the medical experts to make the right determination when it comes to my health and the health of my subordinates.  If they tell me someone needs stress leave. I would rather have someone on stress leave come back in shape than endure someone that isn’t functional because they “need to suck it up.”  We have medical leave as part of our leave policy for a reason.



You really have no other choice.  Those chits trump all.  

Im not sure how anyone can't truly see mental health is being abused.  The saddest part for me isn't the abusers is the truly hurting who are having their care distracted by the nefarious.


----------



## brihard (21 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> You really have no other choice.  Those chits trump all.
> 
> Im not sure how anyone can't truly see mental health is being abused.  The saddest part for me isn't the abusers is the truly hurting who are having their care distracted by the nefarious.


There are undoubtedly a few, yes. But not many troops will voluntarily choose the scorn and stigma that still ones with being down and out with mental health issues- or even being known to be receiving treatment.

I would suggest that a lot more are hiding mental injuries, and are putting a mask on and going to work each day because they don’t want to face that, and fear the ‘abusing the system’ label. How we talk about it matters.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2021)

Furniture said:


> Unless you meant something entirely different by "it's taken off like wildfire".



Replied to you in the Emergency Services forum, so as not to distract from the cannabis cupcake discussion.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Nov 2021)

brihard said:


> There are undoubtedly a few, yes. But not many troops will voluntarily choose the scorn and stigma that still ones with being down and out with mental health issues- or even being known to be receiving treatment.
> 
> I would suggest that a lot more are hiding mental injuries, and are putting a mask on and going to work each day because they don’t want to face that, and fear the ‘abusing the system’ label. How we talk about it matters.



You and I have no idea how many are real or not.  But I will tell you from where are sit, if the majority are truly hurting we have raised some weak children.  I also do not see this stigma anymore.  I have never seen anyone shunned for seeking help.  And every supervisor I know, knows better than try to play loose and fast with MELs.  Its easier to just accept it and move along. 

The sad state is as more and more go down, more weight and pressure are put on the fit and able.  I tell you we are burning the candle at both ends and the outcome is not going to be good. 

We need to screen better for mental health during enrolment.


----------



## FJAG (21 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> You and I have no idea how many are real or not.  But I will tell you from where are sit, if the majority are truly hurting we have raised some weak children.  I also do not see this stigma anymore.  I have never seen anyone shunned for seeking help.  And every supervisor I know, knows better than try to play loose and fast with MELs.  Its easier to just accept it and move along.
> 
> The sad state is as more and more go down, more weight and pressure are put on the fit and able.  I tell you we are burning the candle at both ends and the outcome is not going to be good.
> 
> We need to screen better for mental health during enrolment.


One of the factors to take into consideration is the Federal Human Rights legislation. Sec 3(1) of the Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of ... genetic characteristics or disability. S 7 prohibits discrimination in the matter of employment. s 8 in the matter of employment applications. 

S 15(1) provides exceptions for: a) bona fide occupational requirements which itself is limited by (2) a requirement for accommodation except where there is undue hardship on the person or agency that needs to provide accommodation. Subsection (9), subsection (2) is subject to the principle of universality of service under which members of the Canadian Forces must at all times and under any circumstances perform any functions that they may be required to perform.

While it is straightforward that what we are talking about is discrimination under s3(1) the question is to what extent such discrimination is permissible under s 15. That is where interpretation comes in. I've been out of the system too long to follow where the case law or the departmental policies sit these days but from many of the discussions here it seems to me that the CAF is fairly generous in its accommodation policies.

The problem may be with what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We want to be very accommodating to people who have limitations based on physical or mental injuries from battle or employment but at the same time we want to be tougher on the people who come to us weak through no relationship with their service. Under human rights legislation it is hard to make that distinction. It would be nice if the Act expressly permitted such a distinction or alternatively if there was a system through veteran affairs that would permit an injured soldier to continue to provide service to the CAF through VA on VA's nickel without them remaining a serving member but something in the nature of an associate member with none of the universality of service requirements.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (21 Nov 2021)

Just happened to come across this UK article today:



> Growing number of Civil Service applicants declare themselves 'neuro-diverse' and ask to work from home and have time off to visit therapists​
> *More Civil Service applicants are declaring themselves to be 'neuro-diverse'*
> *Job-hunters in Fast Stream scheme are requesting different working patterns*
> *Whitehall staff recently launched a UK Civil Service Neurodiversity Network*





> Civil Service applicants declaring themselves 'neuro-diverse'
> 
> 
> A source said job-hunters going through the Fast Stream scheme are increasingly 'in some way, shape or form saying they are neuro-divergent' and requesting different working patterns.
> ...



That's a new word to me but I guess its been around for a while



> Neurodiversity - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> Just happened to come across this UK article today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sometimes you just needs to cut your losses...

How To Reduce The Maintenance Of High-Maintenance Employees​


Most managers are familiar with the type: one employee who requires more managerial attention than all the rest combined.  He or she may be a high performer or a low performer, but a common characteristic is the amount of management time consumed.  Issues can be as variable as personalities: They may involve complaints, frustrations, conflicts with others, desires to do things their own way, problems with deadlines... but the common thread is the constant need for a manager's involvement to keep things on track.

I've often written and spoken about what I call the management variant of the "80-20" rule.  Rather than "80% of your business often comes from 20% of your customers," my own version is that "80% of your management time is often spent on 20% of your employees.

Katherine Graham Leviss wrote extensively on this general subject in her 2005 book High Maintenance Employees: Why Your Best People Will Also Be Your Most Difficult...and What You Can Do about It.  For those really wanting to delve into the topic, I'd suggest her book.  For those interested in a quick crash course, following are my own observations after more than two decades of management.

I believe it's helpful to look at two groups: 1) highly valuable employees, and 2) problematic, less talented employees you'd ideally like to see succeed but (truth be told) are not that valuable to your organization.

Like so much in effective management, a key here involves _clarity_.  First, for the top performers:

*Clarity of feedback about the kind of behavior expected*:  The issue is usually not with the quality of work that is done, but the _way_ it's done: the personal conflicts, the team squabbles, the time spent dealing with miscellaneous uncollaborative activities.  From a manager's perspective, it's essential to be clear about what's acceptable and what's not.  Make it clear how much you value them and their contributions, but at the same time make it equally clear there are limits to the amount of time that can be spent on unproductive drama and intrigue.

*Provide challenging assignments that will engage them and fully utilize their abilities. * A talented employee who's totally engaged with a challenging project will have much less opportunity to go off track.  In such circumstances, engagement usually equals productivity.  An effective antidote for a valued but high-maintenance individual is a steady diet of high-involvement projects.

For  problematic _lower performers_, the fundamental challenge is to ensure standards are set and the message is unmistakable:

*Clarity of performance expectations  - what can be tolerated*:  Confronted by malingering, carping, gossiping, tardiness, conflicts, work not turned in on time or of mediocre quality... management needs to make it completely clear what level of work and behavior are required, and what can and can't be tolerated.  Clear performance objectives coupled with ready feedback are the managerial tools of choice.

*Up or out* - Managers - just trying to be nice people - often have a natural tendency to put up with too much for too long.   Unfortunately, problems rarely resolve themselves.   At some point "enough is enough" and high-maintenance employees have to be managed up or out. Either they raise their performance to the needed standards or they can find work elsewhere.   This of course is the time to work closely with HR to ensure performance standards are clear and well documented - and that if "up" isn't happening, the proper protocol is followed when "out" is only alternative.  It's never enjoyable, but sometimes it has to be done.

Keep in mind that an overriding objective here is for managers to be _protective and productive_ about their own use of time.

If you're constantly preoccupied with one high-maintenance employee, you won't be nearly as effective as if your time were more in your own control and evenly distributed.









						How To Reduce The Maintenance Of High-Maintenance Employees
					

Managers - just trying to be nice people - often have a natural tendency to put up with too much for too long.  Unfortunately, problems rarely resolve themselves.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Z.E.R.T. (24 Nov 2021)

What is sad in this story, its she make this amazing carrier dust  from this move. Like what she thinking when doing this...


----------



## Bluebulldog (24 Nov 2021)

ChouinardM said:


> What is sad in this story, its she make is amazing carrier dust  for this move. Like what she think when doing this...


...once more in english?


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Nov 2021)

Bluebulldog said:


> ...once more in english?



What I'm getting is that she threw away her career for this. What was she thinking?


----------



## Z.E.R.T. (24 Nov 2021)

Bluebulldog said:


> ...once more in english?


I mean what is the point of doing this. When you know you can lost everything ..


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Nov 2021)

Bluebulldog said:


> ...once more in english?


I took it as “she was ending her career (making it dust) doing this.  Like the way she was thinking doing this.”


----------



## Z.E.R.T. (24 Nov 2021)

.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Nov 2021)

Alternate translation: it's sad that a trained combat arms soldier would be working in the canteen.


----------



## Burrows (24 Nov 2021)

brihard said:


> I would suggest that a lot more are hiding mental injuries, and are putting a mask on and going to work each day because they don’t want to face that, and fear the ‘abusing the system’ label. How we talk about it matters.


You are absolutely right about that.  And we are coming to a societal maturity where we realize that statements matter less than the manner in which we follow through on them.

We know that concerns about career and social implications, particularly in professions that involve living in violence and trauma (your own or others), create a bigger barrier to accessing services for most of these jobs than their usually top-notch benefit plans.  The culture we create in organizations to make asking for and receiving assistance okay - as well as facilitating returns to meaningful work, matters.

Need convincing?  Its right there for every leader:

Know your soldiers and *promote their welfare*


----------



## KevinB (25 Nov 2021)

Burrows said:


> You are absolutely right about that.  And we are coming to a societal maturity where we realize that statements matter less than the manner in which we follow through on them.
> 
> We know that concerns about career and social implications, particularly in professions that involve living in violence and trauma (your own or others), create a bigger barrier to accessing services for most of these jobs than their usually top-notch benefit plans.  The culture we create in organizations to make asking for and receiving assistance okay - as well as facilitating returns to meaningful work, matters.
> 
> ...


True leaders prepare their soldiers for war.
   The CF did a horrible job at that (I would assume still does - but I am long stale for that comment to have 100% accuracy ) - as do most Militaries outside of their SOF.   In the same vein that most LE and other first responders do a piss poor job of preparing their members for emotional trauma.

 Proper mental training, effective and realistic training would do a heck of a lot more do reduce issues of CSR/PTSD.
   As opposed to a bunch of BS bravado in training that does nothing for downrange effects.

Education into what the body and mind do under stress, and giving member the tools and conditioning to function during and after critical incidents is going to pay off a whole lot more than soley dealing with issues after the incidents.

Proper counseling after issues helps, and not some half baked counsellor - but real professional mental health specialists who specialize in the specific area of trauma.


----------



## Z.E.R.T. (25 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> True leaders prepare their soldiers for war.
> The CF did a horrible job at that (I would assume still does - but I am long stale for that comment to have 100% accuracy ) - as do most Militaries outside of their SOF.   In the same vein that most LE and other first responders do a piss poor job of preparing their members for emotional trauma.
> 
> Proper mental training, effective and realistic training would do a heck of a lot more do reduce issues of CSR/PTSD.
> ...


Altess we are better that US if you check the forum or the others platform you wiol see that every soldier quit because of poor leadership ect....


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2021)

Soldiers are abusing the system ... and the institution, through poor leadership, lack of resources, etc., is also abusing soldiers and has been for a long time.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Nov 2021)

Trying to find a smoking gun for mental health issues is intellectually dishonest.

There are hundreds of factors that need to be considered and you can't simply pin it on weakness, etc.

I'm certain if the CAF actually commissioned a study by medical professionals that interviewed thousands of people, they would find out very quickly what the issues are.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (26 Nov 2021)

We've put enough people in boxes who were paranoid that they'd be seen as weak or malingering. I buried one personally.

Shitty people do shitty things, regardless of their mental state. Ask anyone who has been through the meat grinder of Mental Health how "easy" it is to fake a diagnosis, or get the right amount of support. Screening people for mental resiliency is situating the estimate. 

Bdr Cogswell did something unforgivable and tried to use her diagnosis to save her own skin; that in and of itself is deplorable. Mental Health diagnosis is an explanation, not an excuse. The first thing you're told is that regardless of your struggles, you're still accountable for your actions. She tried to shirk that accountability and I hope she gets what's coming to her.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Nov 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> *Bdr Cogswell did something unforgivable and tried to use her diagnosis to save her own skin;* that in and of itself is deplorable. Mental Health diagnosis is an explanation, not an excuse. The first thing you're told is that regardless of your struggles, you're still accountable for your actions. She tried to shirk that accountability and I hope she gets what's coming to her.


Sounds like something a lawyer may come up with as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> True leaders prepare their soldiers for war.
> The CF did a horrible job at that (I would assume still does - but I am long stale for that comment to have 100% accuracy ) - as do most Militaries outside of their SOF.   In the same vein that most LE and other first responders do a piss poor job of preparing their members for emotional trauma.
> 
> Proper mental training, effective and realistic training would do a heck of a lot more do reduce issues of CSR/PTSD.
> ...


You are so correct. I said over 20 years ago we do a great job of prepping soldiers physically - PT, weapons training etc - but we never took the time to prep their headspace and timing, if you know what I mean. 

The CAF started the Road To Mental Readiness in about 2008 IIRC. R2MR for short. We adopted it in Corrections here in Manitoba. I actually teach it. I think its a good program, but we have to wait a few years to see if its effective.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Nov 2021)

Z.E.R.T. said:


> Altess we are better that US if you check the forum or the others platform you wiol see that every soldier quit because of poor leadership ect....


What are you trying to say?


----------



## Z.E.R.T. (26 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> What are you trying to say?


The US soldiers are tired of poor leadership and  be threated like sht* alots of them leaving after only 1 enlistment..Because of that! if you go on U.S Army W.T.F! moments forum and facebook page. Always the same story coming out.


----------



## dangerboy (26 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> You are so correct. I said over 20 years ago we do a great job of prepping soldiers physically - PT, weapons training etc - but we never took the time to prep their headspace and timing, if you know what I mean.


We gave out a bunch of copies of Dave Grossman's book "On Combat" and had him speak to the BNs. That was enough to tick the box off I guess


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Nov 2021)

dangerboy said:


> We gave out a bunch of copies of Dave Grossman's book "On Combat" and had him speak to the BNs. That was enough to tick the box off I guess


Not enough IMO. Realistic training - where things go wrong -, the focus on the Big 4 and how to destress yourself are huge components. Hyper vigilance is a real concern once you leave the theatre. 

Speaking of which my sneaky granddaughter caused my amygdala to startle me - she's a good stalker. Sneaky little thing. Maybe sniper material?


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Not enough IMO. Realistic training - where things go wrong -, the focus on the Big 4 and how to destress yourself are huge components. Hyper vigilance is a real concern once you leave the theatre.
> 
> Speaking of which my sneaky granddaughter caused my amygdala to startle me - she's a good stalker. Sneaky little thing. Maybe sniper material?


Jim, we used to see you as the instructor with pearls of wisdom for us greenhorns in battleschool. Good insights.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Nov 2021)

ArmyRick said:


> Jim, we used to see you as the instructor with pearls of wisdom for us greenhorns in battleschool. Good insights.


Thank you very much. I’m not sure about the wisdom thing….


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Thank you very much. I’m not sure about the wisdom thing….


What not to do, from personal experience, is still wisdom


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> What not to do, from personal experience, is still wisdom


Hey everybody! I gots _wisdom_. A whole stinkin' truck load of wisdom.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (29 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Sounds like something a lawyer may come up with as well.



Of course it is ... a defence lawyer's job is to advocate for his/her client and do whatever they can to mitigate consequences. Prosecution role is to advocate for harsher penalty. The judge makes the final decision after hearing both sides.


----------



## dangerboy (11 Feb 2022)

For those that are interested the Courts Marital Sentencing decision for this case has been posted on the Office of the Chief Military Judge's website.  Worth a read.

Cogswell C.H. (Bombardier), R. v. - Chief Military Judge


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Feb 2022)

dangerboy said:


> For those that are interested the Courts Marital Sentencing decision for this case has been posted on the Office of the Chief Military Judge's website.  Worth a read.
> 
> Cogswell C.H. (Bombardier), R. v. - Chief Military Judge



30 days in Club Ed!  Yikes!  She was on her way out anyways... The dismissal for he is no bigger regardless of the category.


----------



## Maxman1 (12 Feb 2022)

Sounds like they wanted to make an example.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Feb 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> Sounds like they wanted to make an example.


She could have gotten people killed, and she got a bunch of people high against their consent. If you read the judgement she could have easily gotten a lot longer, and sounds like she's going to start getting treatment for her MH issues while in custody.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2022)

Meh. 30 days to lose some weight. She's on Release, so it's not like she'll be participating in the standard prisoner routine around there anyway.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Feb 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Meh. 30 days to lose some weight. She's on Release, so it's not like she'll be participating in the standard prisoner routine around there anyway.


There were people being released during my brief all inclusive. I seem to remember them getting belt fed rooster the whole time. That was in the early 80s though, so I'm sure CFSPDB is a more enlightened place now.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Feb 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> There were people being released during my brief all inclusive. I seem to remember them getting belt fed rooster the whole time. That was in the early 80s though, so I'm sure CFSPDB is a more enlightened place now.



It is unlikely that she will go to the CFSPDB to serve her sentence.  Generally, those being released are dealt with in accordance with the Notes to QR&O 104.04 and "will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected".  In the sentencing decision can be found the following:



> [127]       By means of an Agreed Statement of Fact submitted in the context of the sentencing hearing the prosecution presented the following evidence to the Court:
> “The following accommodations for continuing care will be made by the *New Brunswick Women’s Correctional Centre*:
> 
> 1.                  Access to CAF psychiatric services will be accommodated while a CAF member is incarcerated;
> ...



Once Ms. Cogswell's (I used a civilian title) appeals have run their course, my expectation is she will be spending that 30 days at the New Brunswick Women's Correctional Centre.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Once Ms. Cogswell's (I used a civilian title) appeals have run their course, my expectation is she will be spending that 30 days at the New Brunswick Women's Correctional Centre.


That is normally what should happen.....over my 32 years I've seen about 10 guys sign their release while actually serving their sentence.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Feb 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That is normally what should happen.....over my 32 years I've seen about 10 guys sign their release while actually serving their sentence.



Would any of them have been serving a court martial imposed sentence or were the majority inside after a civilian conviction and subsequently released?


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Feb 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That is normally what should happen.....over my 32 years I've seen about 10 guys sign their release while actually serving their sentence.



Do most wish they had gone to club Ed ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2022)

I would wsger all serving civilian time. I spent the last half in a treatment jail and a disturbingly high number of those were for kiddie porn.


----------



## lenaitch (13 Feb 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> It is unlikely that she will go to the CFSPDB to serve her sentence.  Generally, those being released are dealt with in accordance with the Notes to QR&O 104.04 and "will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected".  In the sentencing decision can be found the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Ms. Cogswell's (I used a civilian title) appeals have run their course, my expectation is she will be spending that 30 days at the New Brunswick Women's Correctional Centre.


That's the way I read the judgment.  The Court refers to discussions with NB Corrections about counselling services.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Feb 2022)

Too bad. Military punishment for an offence against military personnel.


----------



## KevinB (13 Feb 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> It is unlikely that she will go to the CFSPDB to serve her sentence.  Generally, those being released are dealt with in accordance with the Notes to QR&O 104.04 and "will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected".  In the sentencing decision can be found the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Ms. Cogswell's (I used a civilian title) appeals have run their course, my expectation is she will be spending that 30 days at the New Brunswick Women's Correctional Centre.


She's absolutely retarded if she appeals - The Prosecution was asking for a Year MIN, she doesn't have a leg to stand on, and the Federal Appeals Court might find the Trial Judge erred in the Sentencing...


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2022)

Could someone file a lawsuit against the crown for allowing an employee to bring in home made food and sell/provide it through the canteen?

Could she be held liable for damages or something along those lines? Reading the impact statement it sounds like there's going to be VAC claims submitted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jun 2022)

No appeal for YOU!








						Canadian soldier who served cannabis cupcakes to comrades loses appeal of case
					

A Canadian soldier convicted of serving cannabis-laced cupcakes to eight of her comrades during a live-fire training exercise in New Brunswick in 2018 has lost her appeal.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jun 2022)

Has she even spent an hour inside a jail cell?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2022)

Appeal rejected by CMAC.  Their reasons were released a few days ago.  Of note, the appellant used civilian legal counsel for the appeal.






						Kapoor Barristers | Toronto Criminal Defence Firm | Home
					

Kapoor Barristers is a law firm based in Toronto offering legal services in criminal and regulatory law.




					www.kapoorbarristers.com
				









						R. v. Cogswell - Court Martial Appeal Court
					






					decisions.cmac-cacm.ca


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Of note, the appellant used civilian legal counsel for the appeal.


Did she ever. Anil Kapoor really knows his shit in the federal realm. He’s friggin’ excellent. She picked very good and likely quite pricey counsel.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

I'm glad that the CMAC upheld both conviction and sentence. I wonder if she's going to push it up to the SCC....


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I'm glad that the CMAC upheld both conviction and sentence. I wonder if she's going to push it up to the SCC....


She can try, but likely wouldn’t be given leave to have the case heard at that level. The CMAC decision was unanimous, so there’s not appeal as of right to the SCC. Absent some really compelling question of law, SCC would probably nope it.


----------



## KevinB (16 Aug 2022)

I don’t understand why the F she appealed. She was lucky with what she got initially.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2022)

From what I can see, the appeal appears to have been focused on technical, chain of custody of evidence grounds.  If you can get the evidence tossed, the conviction goes as well.


----------



## KevinB (16 Aug 2022)

dapaterson said:


> From what I can see, the appeal appears to have been focused on technical, chain of custody of evidence grounds.  If you can get the evidence tossed, the conviction goes as well.


She's batshit crazy.
  Her lawyer shouldn't have accepted payment in cupcakes - as anyone arguing chain of custody in the fact that more evidence wasn't able to be gathered due to the circumstances probably should not be practicing law.

If the MP's had lost cupcake wrappers, or if the chain of custody of the 1 obtained cupcake wrapper had been contaminated - then sure.
   But arguing (effectively) that the MP's should have collected more cupcake wrappers, when it was several hours after the cupcakes had been eaten that the effects where identified - and longer for the common cause to be determined.

IMHO the CMAC should have up'd her sentence as the trial judge was too lenient...


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2022)

There are times, more frequently then many think, where a lawyer's evaluation of the case is not the same as the client's perception of it. All too often clients are subject to 'selective listening' to advice that comes from all over the place and will have convinced themselves of the rightness of their view of the world.

If the client is prepared to pay, many lawyers are prepared to throw a Hail, Mary pass. Sometimes you luck in.

🍻


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> I don’t understand why the F she appealed. She was lucky with what she got initially.


Which was only reduction in rank, kicked out of the CF and *30 days in jail*! Should have gotten a heck of lot more time in the Crowbar Hotel!


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2022)

I wonder if she's just serving weekends .


----------



## GR66 (16 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if she's just serving weekends .


She was a Reservists.  Tuesday nights and one weekend a month!


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Could someone file a lawsuit against the crown for allowing an employee to bring in home made food and sell/provide it through the canteen?
> 
> Could she be held liable for damages or something along those lines? Reading the impact statement it sounds like there's going to be VAC claims submitted.


I think this is a good point.

In the days prior to CADPAT and Tacvests and beards one of the soldiers got sick and puked in the field.

He claimed it was from a hamburger from the platoon canteen that made him sick.

Canteens were no longer allowed to sell products that had to be cooked on a stove.


----------

