# Former Canadian Forces officer sues federal government over mistaken identity...



## OceanBonfire (21 Apr 2020)

> *Former Canadian Forces officer sues federal government over mistaken identity in sexual assault case*
> 
> Officer seeks special damages, alleges ‘egregious and outrageous mistake’ in charging wrong person
> 
> ...


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2020)

Interesting.

I was dogged for years by the service and criminal record of another CAF member with the same first and last name, a different middle name (same initial) and very similar DOBs.  On several occasions over the years at traffic stops by the MP and local/provincial police I was asked to prove my middle name because my driver's licence only had my first name and middle initial. In one case the conversation went like this:

LEO:  "What's your middle name?"
Me: "XXXX"
LEO: "Can you prove it?  If you can't you're going to jail."

I finally had my middle name added to my driver's licence.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Apr 2020)

Unlucky or unfair?   :-X


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Unlucky or unfair?   :-X



Actually, appears to be gross negligence. Guy had a different DOB, SIN, SN, likely employment history, rank...the list goes on and on. Can't even begin to imagine what he went through. Poor SOB.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Apr 2020)

Shortly after I retired I received a letter from the NDHQ pension folks informing me that because of a court order, my superannuation was being reduced retroactively in order to meet the terms of an a settlement. After beaucoup phone calls, I finally found an official in the "income tax department" who agreed to look into it for me. Surprise, he soon phoned back to let me know there had been a ruling against another ex-service member with the same first and last name in a divorce case in Edmonton. He advised me he had told the pension folks they had the wrong person and to fix it ASAP. They did, and I think I got a short letter telling me the previous correspondence had been cancelled. To save ink, they left out words like "regret" and "sorry".


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Actually, appears to be gross negligence. Guy had a different DOB, SIN, SN, likely employment history, rank...the list goes on and on. Can't even begin to imagine what he went through. Poor SOB.


Tthe Winnipeg Free Press ran this story this morning. To be honest I'm not surprised the NIS made a mess of this.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Shortly after I retired I received a letter from the NDHQ pension folks informing me that because of a court order, my superannuation was being reduced retroactively in order to meet the terms of an a settlement. After beaucoup phone calls, I finally found an official in the "income tax department" who agreed to look into it for me. Surprise, he soon phoned back to let me know there had been a ruling against another ex-service member with the same first and last name in a divorce case in Edmonton. He advised me he had told the pension folks they had the wrong person and to fix it ASAP. They did, and I think I got a short letter telling me the previous correspondence had been cancelled. To save ink, they left out words like "regret" and "sorry".



Similar situation for me, I CT'd in 2009 and was entitled to Recruitment Allowance. Got a letter saying my file was reviewed and because I had prior RegF service I wasn't entitled. Immediately emailed my broker and asked if they had the right person... she replied they did not. I have a pretty unique last name so unless they pulled my father's service record when trying to get mine, I have no idea how they'd screw that up.


----------



## QM (25 Apr 2020)

A google search brings up the stories from last August, with the poor guy's name still showing. Interstingly he was a Chief. The lame duck Canadian press corps continues to mis-understand the most basis things about the Canadian military; it is no surprise they (deftly aided by our own PA organizations) run error-filled and erroeneous stories.  

I've always felt that people who get front page attention when they are accused of something, should get front page attention when they are acquitted, rather than a small paragraph on page 34.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Apr 2020)

Hope he wins, and makes a precedence where they put out press releases specifically exonerating someone if something like this happens after a charge is laid and publicized. Especially in the age of google and those press releases surviving forever, they should be amended and updated so that future employers don't kill off your application over the CFNIS negligence.

Years ago, got a call from an RCMP officer who wanted to talk to me; though it was a follow up on a traffic accident or similar I had witnessed, as that's where they had my number from. Turns out it was a date rape of some kind with someone with (using?) the same name as me, but got called because they had my name on file. Had to do some panicked search to send a link of my photo in a publication to get ruled out, but was really nervous for a bit. And that never even went as far as a charge, which would have been devastating.


----------



## Weinie (27 Apr 2020)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> A google search brings up the stories from last August, with the poor guy's name still showing. Interstingly he was a Chief. The lame duck Canadian press corps continues to mis-understand the most basis things about the Canadian military; it is no surprise they _*(deftly aided by our own PA organizations)*_ run error-filled and erroeneous stories.
> 
> I've always felt that people who get front page attention when they are accused of something, should get front page attention when they are acquitted, rather than a small paragraph on page 34.



Pardon? Care to elaborate?


----------



## Haggis (27 Apr 2020)

As Log Offr did, I ran a quick Google search using parameters identified in the original post and was able to find several articles in both English and French identifying the member by name and the charge he faced, but only one correction.  Any potential employer or volunteer organization he may wish to work with in the future will likely come up with the same damning information.

I hope he wins BIG!


----------



## QM (28 Apr 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Pardon? Care to elaborate?



Sure. What part do you need to have elaborated?


----------



## QM (29 Apr 2020)

How on earth does someone think this comment is 'trolling'. Good grief. Someone asked me to elaborate on a post I made, and not knowing what part of the post he wanted explained, I asked him in the politest and most professional tone possible, what he wanted me to explain. That's it. I will withhold any further comments, but.... good grief.....


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Apr 2020)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Sure. What part do you need to have elaborated?



Its the "deftly aided by our PA organizations" comment you had in there.  It was bolded and italicized in his quote of your post but that might not display for you if you're using mobile or Tapatalk.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its the "deftly aided by our PA organizations" comment you had in there.  It was bolded and italicized in his quote of your post but that might not display for you if you're using mobile or Tapatalk.



I'm not sure what the confusion is about in his statement; generally the PAFOs shit the bed when it comes to explaining things correctly because they don't want to "complicate things and confuse people". Anyone that has had any kind of technical issue that had to collaborate on MRLs (media release lines) can probably confirm this. Or they take a "passive media approach" and never correct errors, so they stand in reporting.

Why would ranks be any different? This happens all the times with defence reporters saying Warrants and up are officers, but never gets corrected. If defence reporters can't get that straight, why would normal reporters be any better?  :dunno:


----------



## AirDet (30 Apr 2020)

As a former HI, I just can't imagine someone making such a huge mistake and then not making it better. And someone thought it would be better to take HI away from the units in favour of centralized HI.

I hope this guy wins a good sized settlement.


----------



## Weinie (2 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the confusion is about in his statement; _*generally the PAFOs crap the bed when it comes to explaining things correctly because they don't want to "complicate things and confuse people".*_ Anyone that has had any kind of technical issue that had to collaborate on MRLs (media release lines) can probably confirm this. Or they take a "passive media approach" and never correct errors, so they stand in reporting.
> 
> Why would ranks be any different? This happens all the times with defence reporters saying Warrants and up are officers, but never gets corrected. If defence reporters can't get that straight, why would normal reporters be any better?  :dunno:



Am quite interested in examples of where PAO's have crapped the bed  'because they don't want to _*"complicate things and confuse people".*_[/b][/i] 

Proof please.


----------

