# SGT => CPL over Charges Laid for Incidents at Montreal, Rouyn-Noranda CFRCs



## The Bread Guy (25 Jan 2011)

*Charges Laid for Incidents at Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda Canadian Forces Recruiting Centres*
News release link
<blockquote>SAINT-JEAN, QUÉBEC--(Marketwire - Jan. 25, 2011) - The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, laid charges today against a member of the Canadian Forces (CF) in relation to incidents alleged to have happened while the member was performing recruit medical examinations on behalf of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre (CFRC) detachments in Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda.

Sergeant Christian Boudreau was charged with five counts of Breach of Trust by a Public Officer, contrary to section 130 of the National Defence Act (NDA) and pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Code (CC), and five counts of Behaving in a Disgraceful Manner, contrary to section 93 of the NDA, laid in the alternative to the Breach of Trust charges. It is alleged that the accused failed to follow established protocol when examining female patients.

The accused is no longer performing recruit medical examinations and has been reassigned to administrative duties at CFB St-Jean pending the outcome of the judicial process .... </blockquote>(A bit) more on link

_- mod edit to thread title to reflect result of court martial -_


----------



## 57Chevy (25 Jan 2011)

Quebec soldier charged after medical exams investigation
A Quebec-based non-commissioned officer has been charged in connection with the way he carried out medical examinations of female recruits. Sgt. Christian Boudreau has been charged with five counts while carrying out these exams for the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centres at detachments in Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda. The incidents are alleged to have occurred from July 2007 to September 2009. He faces criminal charges of breach of trust, or alternatively charges of behaving in a disgraceful manner under the National Defence Act. Both are punishable by up to five years in prison. 

                           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2011)

Second person in a year...

MM


----------



## GAP (26 Jan 2011)

Soldier charged, no longer examining recruits
The Canadian Press  Wednesday Jan. 26, 2011 6:53 AM ET
Article Link

MONTREAL — A Canadian soldier is facing charges of inappropriate behaviour after performing medical exams on female recruits.

The Canadian Forces says Sgt. Christian Boudreau has been charged with five counts of breach of trust and five counts of behaving in a disgraceful manner.

The military alleges the incidents took place while he was examining women at recruitment centres in Montreal and Rouyn-Noranda, Que.

It says Boudreau is no longer conducting medical exams on recruits.

The Canadian Forces have reassigned Boudreau to administrative duties at CFB St-Jean until the end of his case.
end


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2011)

sighhh........another one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2011)

More here
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98885.0.html


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jan 2011)

Charged, but not found guilty yet.

Not guilty until proven so.....

Something our society seems to forget, specially in the face of relentless media attention.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Charged, but not found guilty yet.
> 
> Not guilty until proven so.....
> 
> Something our society seems to forget, specially in the face of relentless media attention.



Good point...


> .... the right to .... be presumed innocent until proven guilty – always recognized as part of our law – (is) now guaranteed in our constitution ....


----------



## Danjanou (26 Jan 2011)

Threads merged


----------



## 57Chevy (26 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Charged, but not found guilty yet.
> Not guilty until proven so.....



That's why he was reassigned to administrative duties until the end of his case.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> That's why he was reassigned to administrative duties until the end of his case.



Yes, innocent til proven guilty. He is guilty in the court of public opinion already.


----------



## the_girlfirend (12 Apr 2012)

The Court Martial has been going on since 2 Apr 12 in Montreal the first week and at CFLRS this week. The verdict was scheduled for this morning. 

Anybody heard anything?


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2012)

Court Martial verdicts for 2012 are posted to: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/rcm-cmr/2012-eng.asp ; right now, the last one posted is from March.


----------



## the_girlfirend (12 Apr 2012)

Thank you dapaterson I will keep an eye open for the official publication!  

I assume this court has generated a lot of interest at CFLRS and I am hoping someone from CFLRS can inform us of today's verdict. 

Cheers!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 May 2012)

Bumped with the results from here to allow for a bit of thread closure:


> .... R v Sgt Boudreau
> Régiment de Maisonneuve, 691 Cathcart Street, Montréal, QC and Saint-Jean Garrison, Richelain, QC
> 
> Charges and results 	Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 6: S. 130 NDA, breach of trust by public officer (s. 122 CCC).
> ...



Will also change thread title to reflect latest results.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 May 2012)

Just to possibly stop the "but Sgt to Cpl is 2 ranks" questions/comments:

QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 3, Art 3.08(2): MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 May 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just to possibly stop the "but Sgt to Cpl is 2 ranks" questions/comments:
> 
> QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 3, Art 3.08(2): MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
> 
> (2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.


Thanks for the reminder EITS!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 May 2012)

Confirmed.  I was busted down to Cpl last year from Sgt.  It hurt.  But they couldn't hold me down for long!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jul 2012)

According to the _Sun_ _(WARNING:  1)  the Sun takes what some might consider a typically Sun-ish approach to a story of women being asked to show their breasts, and 2)  *don't* read the comments)_:





> A peeping Canadian Forces sergeant with a fondness for womens’ breasts has been demoted to corporal and faces dismissal from the military ....


No mention of dismissal in the CM results, but I also couldn't find the decision the _Sun_ piece quotes from, either, on the CMJ Decisions page.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> According to the _Sun_ _(WARNING:  1)  the Sun takes what some might consider a typically Sun-ish approach to a story of women being asked to show their breasts, and 2)  *don't* read the comments)_



I read the comments.

Am I bad?


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Jul 2012)

I thought the comments were of a higher standard than the usual CBC or Globe and Mail ones in terms of clarity, brevity and general tone. A couple were downright funny.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jul 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I read the comments.
> 
> Am I bad?


Not at all - just more tolerant than I am if you read all the way through without at least a shake of the head.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not at all - just more tolerant than I am if you *read all the way through without at least a shake of the head*.



I never said this.  I just said I read them.  My co-workers could clearly tell that I was pissed at _something_, though.


----------



## gcclarke (10 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> According to the _Sun_ _(WARNING:  1)  the Sun takes what some might consider a typically Sun-ish approach to a story of women being asked to show their breasts, and 2)  *don't* read the comments)_:No mention of dismissal in the CM results, but I also couldn't find the decision the _Sun_ piece quotes from, either, on the CMJ Decisions page.



Perhaps the talk of dismissal is in regards to the pending results of the obligatory Administrative Review (IAW DAOD 5019-2) that the member's file will under-go, as a result of his sexual misconduct (as outlined in DAOD 5019-5).


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2012)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Perhaps the talk of dismissal is in regards to the pending results of the obligatory Administrative Review (IAW DAOD 5019-2) that the member's file will under-go, as a result of his sexual misconduct (as outlined in DAOD 5019-5).


Thanks very much for the ref - appreciated.

Then the story probably _should_ have read "faces _possible_ dismissal", since (as far as we know) there's been no finding in such a review.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2012)

I hope he gets punted from the forces. What a duisgusting breach of trust professionalisim and honour.


----------



## gcclarke (11 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks very much for the ref - appreciated.
> 
> Then the story probably _should_ have read "faces _possible_ dismissal", since (as far as we know) there's been no finding in such a review.



I suppose it might also be important to point out that the process of the review, and any accompanying documentation would also be protected information, and thus certainly not releasable to the press. Anyone not actively involved in the review process really shouldn't find out the findings of said review (or at least not until they notice that he either has or hasn't been kicked out). 



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I hope he gets punted from the forces. What a duisgusting breach of trust professionalisim and honour.



Agreed.


----------

