# OCdt Sage Fanstone, Suicide and Investigation



## The Bread Guy (7 May 2015)

Some more, in English, from the _Kingston Whig-Standard_, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> Royal Military College has confirmed a 19-year-old officer cadet died Wednesday afternoon in Kingston.
> 
> “I am deeply saddened by the tragic death of Officer Cadet Sage Fanstone,” Brig.-Gen. Al Meinzinger, commandant of RMC, said in a statement. “He was a second-year cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada and this terrible event has affected us all. This incident is currently under investigation by Kingston Police.”
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (9 May 2015)

From the French news report, the 2nd year cadet had been arrested for what could become a career ending "morality" issue.

- mod edit to remove speculation -

RIP comrade Fanstone, I hope you have found a better place.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2015)

According to the Whig-Standard,



> On Wednesday afternoon, the Military Police were informed of Fanstone's death. RMC said Friday that Fanstone was on duty and in uniform at the time of his death. While the national investigation service intended to charge Fanstone on Friday under the Criminal Code of Canada, out of respect for the deceased and his family the nature of the charges will not be released.



http://www.thewhig.com/2015/05/08/rmc-officer-cadet-was-arrested-and-taken-to-hospital-under-mental-health-act-the-day-before-his-death


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2015)

Hopefully there's a summary investigation conducted, in no way should OCdt Fanstone have been allowed to leave the hospital alone after a mental health call, especially as a military member.


----------



## brihard (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully there's a summary investigation conducted, in no way should OCdt Fanstone have been allowed to leave the hospital alone after a mental health call, especially as a military member.



The hospital would in no way be obligated to inform anyone when he was getting discharged. If he was brought in by police under the Ontario Mental Health Act, typically the hospital will at some point take charge of the patient and the police will leave unless their continued presence is required because the person is in policy custody for an investigation, or ongoing security/safety issues are present. Typically the patient will tell the assessing doctor what they figure the doctor wants to hear, and typically the doctor will determine that insufficient grounds exit for an involuntary admission and the patient will be released because at that point that hospital has no legal authority to stop them.

The military could have communicated to the cadet an order to not leave the hospital except in the presence of a military escort. Decide for yourself how likely it is that a suicidal person will follow such direction.

Lots more that I'd like to know about this case and that we never will, particularly the nature of the search warrant and charges. No matter what the specifics are, this is a tragedy.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2015)

I'm sure the hospital followed policy as written, but why was an escort from RMC or the Base Duty O not there? I'm more concerned with the breakdown between the MPs calling for OMHA observation and the CoC of the soldier clearly not being informed/reacting appropriately. We need to work to prevent something like this from happening again, and a SI should show where there was a breakdown.


----------



## RCDtpr (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully there's a summary investigation conducted, in no way should OCdt Fanstone have been allowed to leave the hospital alone after a mental health call, especially as a military member.



When we (the police) transport an individual to the hospital under the mental health act; once the doctor takes "possession" for lack of a better term of the individual....we leave as we no longer have anything to do with the process and can't exactly sit around for up to 72 hours. 

If a doctor decides the individual is fit to leave the hospital....under what authority could either the police or military essentially detain the individual by escorting him back to base or wherever. 

An apprehension under the mental health act is not an arrest and as was stated by Brihard....the hospital has no legal obligation....in fact it would be a violation of the members privacy rights.....for them to notify the military he was being discharged without his consent.

People need to understand that while the MPs are in the military...they are police officers and as such are required by law to not violate the rights of individuals.  If a doctor signed off on the member.....neither the MPs nor anyone from RMC is qualified to challenge that.  You can't just arbitrarily remove someone's freedom because you think a doctor is wrong.....the guy has rights.

Hindsight being what it is....obviously the doctor was wrong.......but nobody had anyway of knowing that at the time.

This is a tragic event and I hope the family of the deceased member is ok.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2015)

Thats fine in a civilian sense, drop the guy off and you're not legally responsible anymore. But its Military Police, right? Whats wrong with "Member has been transported to KGH and left in the care of XXX" and let the unit spool up its support system? Stating a member is at hospital is not a breach of their privacy.

I'm not saying the MP did anything wrong here, what I am saying is that if we have a policy that allows this, considering the current issues we have with mental health/PTSD/OSI/etc, then we need to do something to prevent it. This is especially true for young, presumably single soldiers in a school/university environment who are far from family and any normal support system. We're brothers/sisters in arms, and need to be there for each other.


----------



## RCDtpr (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats fine in a civilian sense, drop the guy off and you're not legally responsible anymore. But its Military Police, right? Whats wrong with "Member has been transported to KGH and left in the care of XXX" and let the unit spool up its support system? Stating a member is at hospital is not a breach of their privacy.
> 
> I'm not saying the MP did anything wrong here, what I am saying is that if we have a policy that allows this, considering the current issues we have with mental health/PTSD/OSI/etc, then we need to do something to prevent it. This is especially true for young, presumably single soldiers in a school/university environment who are far from family and any normal support system. We're brothers/sisters in arms, and need to be there for each other.



While I don't disagree with you....there are still legal issues.  A doctor signed off on the individual that he was fine.  I wasn't there, but he clearly wasn't arrested, and I assume had done nothing wrong other than make some sort of indication he may commit self harm (not illegal).  What grounds would the military have to remove the members fundamental right to freedom if a doctor signed off saying he was ok?  A unit does not have the authority to challenge the decision of a medical provider.

While I understand how the military works.....a unit still has to be able to justify removing the rights of a member.  In this case...how could they?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2015)

I'm not saying they need to be detained, but provide an escort to get them home to the shacks safe and sound after the professionals at the local hospital make their decision. Lets be honest here (and you alluded to it already), a soldier is gonna say whatever they need to say to get out of where they're at. We're good at telling people what they want to hear.

I've been a party to someone who self-identified wanting to commit self-harm, and one of the member's instructors sat in the hospital for 10 hours until that member was discharged, and then gave them a drive to their shacks. Someone checked on them in the morning, and ensured they went to the MIR, and then followed up to ensure the member had returned with an action plan from the MH specialist. This same member self-identified again a few months later, and the exact same process was applied including regular wellness checks while they were on sick leave. No challenging of a medical doctor, simply applying the military support system to ensure the member got exactly the help they needed, and prevented something more serious from occurring.


----------



## ballz (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they need to be detained, but provide an escort to get them home to the shacks safe and sound after the professionals at the local hospital make their decision.



That would technically be detaining them. You realize that if a cop pulls you over and won't let you leave, you are technically detained, right? If I want to go from point A to point B, and you want to "escort me," and I tell you to go pound sand but you refuse and insist that you will escort me and tell me that I must comply, then you are detaining me from point A to point B.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've been a party to someone who self-identified wanting to commit self-harm, and one of the member's instructors sat in the hospital for 10 hours until that member was discharged, and then gave them a drive to their shacks. Someone checked on them in the morning, and ensured they went to the MIR, and then followed up to ensure the member had returned with an action plan from the MH specialist. This same member self-identified again a few months later, and the exact same process was applied including regular wellness checks while they were on sick leave. No challenging of a medical doctor, simply applying the military support system to ensure the member got exactly the help they needed, and prevented something more serious from occurring.



Look at what I underlined. If that person was going to kill themselves, then that period of time, marked by the period between your two sentences, was enough of a window to do it. In your case, it didn't happen, and that's great. In this case, it *appears* the person made it back to the shacks safe and sound as it was, escort or no escort, but before anyone could "check in on him," had already killed himself. I don't know what happened here, but sometimes, short of chaining someone to a bed, you can't prevent it...

As for conducting an SI, I am pretty sure the CAF has already one-upped that as I believe all suicides now trigger a BOI.


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully there's a summary investigation conducted, in no way should OCdt Fanstone have been allowed to leave the hospital alone after a mental health call, especially as a military member.



I'm sure an SI will be conducted however there is nothing that can be done to stop someone from leaving hospital after a mental health call.  Unless they have been formed, once the physician and mental health folks deem an individual can be released then the person is free to go.  Privacy Act sections actually prohibit them from even phoning the base and letting them know he's being released.


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm sure the hospital followed policy as written, but why was an escort from RMC or the Base Duty O not there? I'm more concerned with the breakdown between the MPs calling for OMHA observation and the CoC of the soldier clearly not being informed/reacting appropriately. We need to work to prevent something like this from happening again, and a SI should show where there was a breakdown.



Its a civilian hospital and they have no obligation to allow any sort of "escort" for the individual.  

And the MPs didn't "call for an observation" and in fact they no authority under any of the Provincial Mental Health Acts.  While most Mental Health Acts refer to "police" and their authority, it draws that definition of "police" from the respective Provincial Police Act and MPs are not named in any of them.  The reasons for that and for why that has never been changed is complex and a topic for another thread.  

What they can do is what they did.  If someone appears to be in some form of distress, or makes statements that they will do harm to themselves, the MP actually have an obligation to take them to a suitable facility for an assessment.  To make it even more complicated though, if the individual declines and if there is no other crime for which the MP could place the individual under arrest, there is not really much they could do short of calling a civilian police officer who can act under the MHA.  Of course, for individuals subject to the CSD they could always be ordered to go with the MP but for civilians it's a complicated issue that is currently being worked on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2015)

geo said:
			
		

> From the French news report, the 2nd year cadet had been arrested for what could become a career ending "morality" issue.
> 
> - mod edit to remove speculation -
> 
> RIP comrade Fanstone, I hope you have found a better place.


Just a quick head's up to all.

Let's not forget there will be all sorts of investigations, especially given the Military Police and NIS being involved, so let's be careful to stick to discussion of broad-strokes issues and stay away from too much second-guessing.

Thanks all.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats fine in a civilian sense, drop the guy off and you're not legally responsible anymore. But its Military Police, right? Whats wrong with "Member has been transported to KGH and left in the care of XXX" and let the unit spool up its support system? Stating a member is at hospital is not a breach of their privacy.



I'm sure the Unit was made aware that the Member was transported to the hospital and left in their care however the Unit has no idea how long the Member is going to be there or when they could be released.  They could be held 24 hours, 72 hours or even much longer if the Doctors deem it necessary and they seek the appropriate court orders.  The Unit can have all of its support system ready to go but since the hospital cannot divulge any personal info on the Member, including when he/she is released, there is not much that can be done if the Member is determined to do harm to themselves.


----------



## McG (9 May 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I'm sure an SI will be conducted ...


No.  There will be a BOI.


----------



## geo (9 May 2015)

excluding operational deaths, there are Boards of Inquiry if:.
•a CF member is suspected to have wilfully caused their own death or serious injury.

see DOAD 7002-1

note that the BOI is not a criminal investigation, its purpose is not to find guilt.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 May 2015)

Very sad that one so young felt the need to end his life.My prayers for his family.


----------



## brihard (9 May 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Its a civilian hospital and they have no obligation to allow any sort of "escort" for the individual.
> 
> And the MPs didn't "call for an observation" and in fact they no authority under any of the Provincial Mental Health Acts.  While most Mental Health Acts refer to "police" and their authority, it draws that definition of "police" from the respective Provincial Police Act and MPs are not named in any of them.  The reasons for that and for why that has never been changed is complex and a topic for another thread.



This surprises me greatly. Have MPs in Ontario not been deemed Police Officers in Ontario under part 2 of the Interprovincial Policing Act? That would seem like a great oversight if such an appointment has not been sought and kept in place each time it comes up for expiry...


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2015)

First off, that Act only applies to Ontario and no, MP have never been included in it because MP are not extra-provincial within the scope of this Act.  They exist on every Base in Ontario.  Those MP that are posted outside of Ontario ARE extra-provincial within the scope of the Act however it would still not apply to them even IF they were named because they are not considered police officers under the various provincial Police Acts or Police Services Acts.  Those Acts specifically refer to provincially constituted municipal, regional and/or provincial police departments and in some cases they even exclude some First Nations police agencies.  They also include the RCMP because in many cases they are contracted as the de facto provincial police but they do not include MP.  

There was an attempt made a few years ago to have MP included in the Alberta provincial Police Act but it fell through once government lawyers got involved.  They would not allow a federal agency (the MP) to be under provincial control which they would be through the provincial SIU (or whatever they choose to call it).  The RCMP are in that situation however they are subject to SIU oversight because they are contracted by the Province.  

Its a complex issue but one that is perhaps best left alone since both the NDA and the CC, as well as case law, establish the jurisdiction and authorities of MP.


----------



## Petard (10 May 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Unit was made aware that the Member was transported to the hospital and left in their care however the Unit has no idea how long the Member is going to be there or when they could be released.  They could be held 24 hours, 72 hours or even much longer if the Doctors deem it necessary and they seek the appropriate court orders.  The Unit can have all of its support system ready to go but since the hospital cannot divulge any personal info on the Member, including when he/she is released, there is not much that can be done if the Member is determined to do harm to themselves.



You're making a number of broad assumptions here, the biggest one being that the MP's informed the unit.
Once a unit is informed though there is nothing preventing them from contacting the health care facility to confirm that the individual is still there, and what time could they be expected to be released. Nothing in there is requesting information on the why, just the "where are they" and "when *might* they be seen"
All these things, though, will most likely be within the terms of reference for the BOI


----------



## RCDtpr (10 May 2015)

Petard said:
			
		

> You're making a number of broad assumptions here, the biggest one being that the MP's informed the unit.
> Once a unit is informed though there is nothing preventing them from contacting the health care facility to confirm that the individual is still there, and what time could they be expected to be released. Nothing in there is requesting information on the why, just the "where are they" and "when *might* they be seen"
> All these things, though, will most likely be within the terms of reference for the BOI



A hospital isn't going to give ANY form of info on when the member might get released to anyone without his consent.  You'll be hard pressed to even have them verify the member is a patient.

This BOI can point out the unit didn't get info from the hospital all it wants...it won't change anything.  The military, at times, needs to comprehend that the civvie world doesn't operate like them.  The hospital doesn't care what regulations the military may have.  Unit can call 100 times...without a warrant or production order they will get no info whatsoever.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 May 2015)

Petard said:
			
		

> You're making a number of broad assumptions here, the biggest one being that the MP's informed the unit.
> Once a unit is informed though there is nothing preventing them from contacting the health care facility to confirm that the individual is still there, and what time could they be expected to be released. Nothing in there is requesting information on the why, just the "where are they" and "when *might* they be seen"
> All these things, though, will most likely be within the terms of reference for the BOI



Actually, even confirming that an individual has been admitted to, or even seen at, a health care facility is not permitted without the express permission of the individual.

Though I'm not familiar with the policies and procedures of the hospital in this case, my assumption is they are not much different than any that I've had dealings with.  As an example - a number of years ago when I was managing a large civilian medical practice group in Calgary, a young corporal (alone, on leave from an air base down east, travelling through) presented at our clinic and was seen by a doctor who immediately sent her to the closest emergency dept with the expectation that she would be quickly admitted and possibly have surgery.  I was made aware because the reception staff were unsure of the billing procedure and since they knew I was ex-CF asked my advice.  I spoke briefly with her before she departed for the hospital and let her know, that with her permission, I would inform the CF locally that she was going to the hospital.  Partly to confirm that we would get paid (DND were one of the worst late payers) and partly to ensure that the young corporal was not forgotten in the hospital I called the civilian (ex-Reg 6B) medic at the ASU to provide him with the details (we had known each other since when we were privates).  He called me back later in the day to make sure that I had given him correct information  because the hospital wouldn't even confirm that she had been admitted.  I called the hospital "on behalf of the referring doctor/clinic" (which was a legitimate nexus) and they confirmed that she had been admitted and was now in the post-op recovery room.


----------



## Petard (10 May 2015)

So the MP's had no responsibility to report to the unit's duty officer that they'd transported a member of their unit to a hospital?

What about the fact that they'd been called at all?
Something must've caused them to become involved

As for terms of reference for a BOI, I've been involved with the sad process for 3 suicides in the military, 2 of which were investigated by civilian police as they occurred off duty and off base.
Although the terms of ref for the latter 2 included contacting the civilian agencies involved, it was understood they were under no obligation to provide any information, and they didn't (which in one case did upset the grieving family a great deal).


----------



## JesseWZ (10 May 2015)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> A hospital isn't going to give ANY form of info on when the member might get released to anyone without his consent.  You'll be hard pressed to even have them verify the member is a patient.
> 
> This BOI can point out the unit didn't get info from the hospital all it wants...it won't change anything.  The military, at times, needs to comprehend that the civvie world doesn't operate like them.  The hospital doesn't care what regulations the military may have.  Unit can call 100 times...without a warrant or production order they will get no info whatsoever.


^ Good post.

MPs will *normally* inform a duty officer or Unit CWO/Co'xn that an incident has occurred with a member of the unit. It would *surprise* me if this was not done.

Depending on the type of incident, very minimal information may be given particularly if it involves an ongoing investigation or sensitive personal matter. In this case, MP likely didn't receive a timeline for when or if the member was going to be released from hospital. Just like the unit, the hospital has no obligation to give MP information unless subject to a warrant or production order.


----------



## Tibbson (10 May 2015)

Petard said:
			
		

> As for terms of reference for a BOI, I've been involved with the sad process for 3 suicides in the military, 2 of which were investigated by civilian police as they occurred off duty and off base.
> Although the terms of ref for the latter 2 included contacting the civilian agencies involved, it was understood they were under no obligation to provide any information, and they didn't (which in one case did upset the grieving family a great deal).



Which is why it astounds me when I hear Drapeau et al go on and on about how all suicides should be investigated by civilian police regardless of where they occur.  They will only investigate it as far as any potential crime wrt the death is concerned and not in any way as to why an individual committed suicide.  Three or four page report only and they are under no obligation to share the info with anyone, family or not.  Very rarely will a coroner get involved and call any sort of inquest which means an MP investigation and a BOI is a much better way to go.

In any event I'm sure the process will play itself out in this case.


----------



## captloadie (11 May 2015)

Are the regulations different based on province?

In my neck of the woods (NE Alberta), I have unfortunately had several members admitted to hospital, some being escorted there by MPs or the RCMP. We have always been notified via two means. 

We get a hospital admission message from the MIR that gives us the member's details, date/time of admission, and expected release date. We also get a message when the member is released.

We also get a notification from the MPs, usually an e-mail stating that they responded to a call and were escorting the member to the hospital (either due to injury or under the MHA).

In all instances, someone goes down to the hospital to check in on the individual, and we have never had an issue with getting access to them. In one instance at Emerg, they even let me go into the treatment area to check on the individaul (granted he suffered a minor head injury, not a self inflicted one).


----------



## Tibbson (11 May 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> We get a hospital admission message from the MIR that gives us the member's details, date/time of admission, and expected release date. We also get a message when the member is released.
> 
> We also get a notification from the MPs, usually an e-mail stating that they responded to a call and were escorting the member to the hospital (either due to injury or under the MHA).
> 
> In all instances, someone goes down to the hospital to check in on the individual, and we have never had an issue with getting access to them. In one instance at Emerg, they even let me go into the treatment area to check on the individaul (granted he suffered a minor head injury, not a self inflicted one).



Nope, they are not different from province to province however that doesn't mean all hospitals observe or interpret the privacy laws and such the same.  It could be that your MIR sent someone to a civilian hospital in which case they would know and would notify the Unit so the member was not considered AWA.  Same goes for the MPs, they could and most likely would notify the Unit for the same reason.  Attending the hospital and getting access to a service member is not really the issue.  Visitors to a hospital are nothing new.  The main issue is the hospital, or even the MIR, divulging personal medical information to a Unit and even them informing a Unit when a patient has been discharged.  All of that is considered private and personal information of the patient and unless they ask for someone to call the Unit there is nothing the hospital can do.  

When you think about it, if you have children over 18 (for the most part) the family physician will not let you know what is going on with your son/daughter without their permission.  Children younger then 18 go to places like Planned Parenthood all the time and get birth control and there is no obligation to inform parents.  There have even been cases where girls under 18 have been able to obtain abortions without parents being notified.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 May 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Are the regulations different based on province?
> 
> In my neck of the woods (NE Alberta), I have unfortunately had several members admitted to hospital, some being escorted there by MPs or the RCMP. We have always been notified via two means.
> 
> ...



I'm most familiar with Alberta's Health Information Act.  I've extracted some parts that deal with your specific question.  The term "custodian" refers to a holder of health information, e.g. doctor, hospital, etc.

HEALTH INFORMATION ACT
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=H05.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779724758


> Disclosure of individually identifying health information
> to be with consent
> 
> 34(1) Subject to sections 35 to 40, a custodian may disclose
> ...



A&D and casualty messages are nothing new.  Receiving health information from civilian providers is nothing new and is probably much more common now than when I was in HAO jobs in the 80s and 90s. Whether civilian providers are pro-active in providing that information to military health providers (which is legitimate - continuity of care and getting paid) will depend on the relationships established between civilian and military health providers.  My assumption is that in smaller locations where the military is much more integrated in the social and economic fabric of the community, civilian providers will be much more comfortable in dealing with the military.  In NE Alberta (I froze my ass there as a private when we had a CFH - also assisted in delivering a baby in an ambulance), my expectation would be they are very familiar with the "social" aspects of the military - not only an employer, but also health care provider, police and judicial authority, possibly landlord,  and in some sense acting as family stand-in.  I see nothing wrong with hospital staff providing some access to a representative from a member's unit when he's been hospitalized (as long as the member does not object).  In that case it could (and I stress "could" - my opinion only), in good faith, fall under para 35(c) that I quoted above - "family members of the individual or to another person with whom the individual is believed to have a close personal relationship".


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2015)

This from the _Kingston Whig-Standard_:


> The board of inquiry into the death of Officer Cadet Sage Fanstone, who died May 6 in Kingston, will begin Friday, the Canadian Forces have confirmed.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## jemgirl (6 Jun 2015)

Couldn't stop myself from interjecting. Speaking broadly, when a person is admitted under my care, whether brought by police, army personnel, or his family, they are treated as a civilian. Their info can only be exchanged with their consent. this includes who they are, what their diagnosis is , what treatment is being provided, and when they are being released from the hospital. If patient is alert and competent, it is assumed that they can convey this information to whoever they need or want. if a patient is not alert, their next of kin may be contacted for treatment. Still their base will not be contacted. That would be considered a breach of confidentiality.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Jun 2015)

Slightly off topic, but what is the "Military Personnel Generation headquarters?"


----------



## cavalryman (6 Jun 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic, but what is the "Military Personnel Generation headquarters?"


The entity formerly known as the Canadian Defense Academy, effective as of 1 June


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Jun 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The entity formerly known as the Canadian Defense Academy, effective as of 1 June



Thank you.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jun 2015)

Or Military Headquarters Generation Personnel?

Because _*Somebody's*_ got to be doing that...


----------

