# Complaints/ Investigation



## Mediman14 (10 Jul 2014)

Does any one know which pubs explain the "complaint process"?


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2014)

It depends on what you want to complain about. Do you mean to submit a Redress of Grievance?

Start with DAOD 2017-0 and 2017-1. That being said, one should attempt to resolve issues at the lowest level. I trust you have already spoken to your chain of command.


----------



## Mediman14 (10 Jul 2014)

Putting a complaint against another military member? If an investigation is launched, what are the rights of the accused? I'm having trouble finding the info in the pubs.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Jul 2014)

Check with your Unit Harassment Advisor.  Even if it isn't harassment, they may be able to point you in the right direction.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2014)

PM inbound.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Jul 2014)

Your rights don't change.  You don't have to say anything and can get a lawyer.

The accused and anyone else that the investigator thinks appropriate, gets a caution before being interviewed.  If the accused is interviewed under caution the results of the investigation would probably be viewed as less than reliable.   You can also request that someone else be there, but I believe if that someone is not a lawyer your request does not have be honoured (I may be wrong on this, I'll let FJAG correct me if so).  Personally I would always have a third party in the room when conducting a cautioned interview for a unit disciplinary investigation.

The JAG site has good resources on investigations, summary trial (which includes info on investigations).
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-summary-trial-level/ch-5-investigation-search-seizure-inspection-powers.page

Edit: A complaint does not necessarily mean harassment, it can be a disciplinary complaint which would result in a DI, either by MPs, NIS or unit.
QR&O 106.02 - INVESTIGATION BEFORE CHARGE LAID

(1) Where a complaint is made or where there are other reasons to believe that a service offence may have been committed, an investigation shall be conducted as soon as practical to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to justify the laying of a charge.

(2) Any complaint that is frivolous or vexatious need not be investigated.


----------



## Old EO Tech (10 Jul 2014)

Yes to comment intelligently we really need more details on whether this is a disciplinary investigation or a workplace harassment situation, there are well laid out processes for both, but very different ones.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2014)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Putting a complaint against another military member? If an investigation is launched, what are the rights of the accused? I'm having trouble finding the info in the pubs.



Talk to your Unit Harassment Advisor, as suggested.  The accused is to be fully informed of what they are being accused of.  All information is to be given to both sides, and the CO will be informed on all matters.  When an Harassment complaint is laid, it goes directly to the CO immediately.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jul 2014)

General Info:

QR&O Chapter 21 Summany Investigations and BOI
DAOD 7002 series

Harassment

DAOD 5012

At the end of the day, if a complaint has been made about you, you have a right to be informed of the substance of the complaint. You do not have a right to know the complainant nor to review the evidence until the investigation is complete.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (13 Jul 2014)

Have acted in the DI role and as a witness for interviews. 

Having seen everything from one side, my best advice to anyone on the other that stands to be interviewed on anything that relates to anything they could be accused of an offence for is to answer no questions. When they ask you if you understand your rights, request to speak to AJAG to get better clarification. 
When they break out that little interview sheet, refuse to say anything else without AJAG to advise.

It's cliche, but nothing you say will likely put you in a better legal standpoint than saying nothing at all. Don't even repeat anything you said previously.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jul 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Don't even repeat anything you said previously.


_Perhaps_ the lesson to be taken is...

...if a person is afraid to repeat something said about someone without a lawyer present, maybe avoid being the unit's gossipy bitch and not saying it the first time?  

Just sayin'


----------



## DAA (13 Jul 2014)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Does any one know which pubs explain the "complaint process"?



As mentioned previously, it all depends on just what category the "complaint" falls into?  (ie; Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Racism, etc, etc)

Your best option, would be to consult with one of your local WRA's (Workplace Relations Advisors) and there should be many of them available or if necessary, the supporting DRC (Dispute Resolution Centre).


----------



## Hunter (13 Jul 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, if a complaint has been made about you, you have a right to be informed of the substance of the complaint. You do not have a right to know the complainant nor to review the evidence until the investigation is complete.



A couple of somewhat tangential questions - 

If such an investigation was completed and the investigation closed with no further action, does the respondent then have the right to know the complainant and review the evidence?

Is there a requirement for the unit or investigating body to keep the material related to the investigation and findings for any period of time?


----------



## DAA (13 Jul 2014)

Hunter said:
			
		

> A couple of somewhat tangential questions -
> If such an investigation was completed and the investigation closed with no further action, does the respondent then have the right to know the complainant and review the evidence?
> Is there a requirement for the unit or investigating body to keep the material related to the investigation and findings for any period of time?



I saw a somewhat similar situation not too long ago.  Someone laid a complaint against a member of our unit but the member was never informed or provided with any information as to just what the complaint was about, merely that someone had made some sort of complaint.

He let the process run it course, was never contacted or interviewed and the end result was that nothing ever came of it.  A simple ATI Request on his part resulted in him receiving copies of everything, including email traffic.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jul 2014)

Here.  READ them yourselves.

DAOD 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution

Harassment Prevention And Resolution Guidelines

In the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines, read Part 5 and Part 7 Significant Issues, 7.1 Disclosure.



> 7.1 Disclosure
> 
> One vital component to the successful resolution of any harassment complaint is the
> disclosure of information to both parties during the resolution process. To respect
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jul 2014)

A good reference is A-LG-007-000/AF-010 - CF Military Administrative Law Manual.  

- Chap 2, Section's 2-4 speak to Notice, Right to make representation, Disclosure and other related subjects.  
- Chap 3 discusses the 4 types of AI's most often used in the CAF (informal, summary, harassment and BOIs).

I can't agree with the "you do not have a right to know the complainant or to review the evidence until the investigation is complete" for a harassment complaint (or any other type that may have adverse effects for a mbr).  That isn't correct; you have a right to disclosure and a right to representation.  How can you do either of those if you don't know who said what? You can't.  The right to these things have been supported by SCC rulings that relate specifically to the CAF, ref'd in the CF Mil Admin Law Manual.

Without checking to be 100% certain, I believe this is also discussed in both the HA and HI Reference Manuals.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jul 2014)

ModlrMike

Both the Complainant and the Respondent have full rights to know what has been said about them, and by whom; unless the disclosure is reasonably believed to imperil the safety of the individual concerned, as indicated in Section 25 of the Privacy Act.  There are very few cases in the CAF where one's life would be threatened by disclosure.

Check links I provided above.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jul 2014)

I accept that the links you provided are correct; if this were an harassment complaint. It appears it is not.

I admit that I'm confused that the CO has already spoken to the member and yet he's no closer to knowing what's going on.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jul 2014)

Hunter said:
			
		

> A couple of somewhat tangential questions -
> 
> If such an investigation was completed and the investigation closed with no further action, does the respondent then have the right to know the complainant and review the evidence?



Yes. 



			
				Hunter said:
			
		

> Is there a requirement for the unit or investigating body to keep the material related to the investigation and findings for any period of time?



Yes, for five years if I remember correctly.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jul 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, for five years if I remember correctly.




In the case of Harassment Complaints, the files are kept for five years of the last date the file was closed.  Should a file be closed and there is cause for the file to be opened again, within the five years, the five years applies to the date it is closed once again.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (14 Jul 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Perhaps_ the lesson to be taken is...
> 
> ...if a person is afraid to repeat something said about someone without a lawyer present, maybe avoid being the unit's gossipy ***** and not saying it the first time?
> 
> Just sayin'



I was saying more along the lines of: Something went down, WO Smith asks Pte Bloggins what the hell is going on here. Pte Bloggins answers the WO, possibly implicating himself in something illegal.

Later the CSM directs another WO to conduct interviews for possible charges. If called to a formal interview Pte Bloggins is best advised to answer no questions, and not even repeat what he told WO Smith before. Nothing Pte Bloggins can say at that point is going to put him in a more advantagous legal position.


----------



## JesseWZ (14 Jul 2014)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I was saying more along the lines of: Something went down, WO Smith asks Pte Bloggins what the hell is going on here. Pte Bloggins answers the WO, possibly implicating himself in something illegal.
> 
> Later the CSM directs another WO to conduct interviews for possible charges. If called to a formal interview Pte Bloggins is best advised to answer no questions, and not even repeat what he told WO Smith before. Nothing Pte Bloggins can say at that point is going to put him in a more advantagous legal position.



This thread is rapidly de-volving in to Barrack Room Lawyer heresay. It's probably best, if Pte Bloggins, when faced with that situation, get offered his Rights to Counsel and then _*contacts his lawyer*_. I'd rather receive legal advise *about my specific situation* from an actual lawyer, then listen to someone's barrack room advise online. 

There are situations where not cooperating with an investigation can lead to more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## FJAG (14 Jul 2014)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> This thread is rapidly de-volving in to Barrack Room Lawyer hearsay. It's probably best, if Pte Bloggins, when faced with that situation, get offered his Rights to Counsel and then _*contacts his lawyer*_. I'd rather receive legal advise *about my specific situation* from an actual lawyer, then listen to someone's barrack room advise online.
> 
> There are situations where not cooperating with an investigation can lead to more trouble than it's worth.



 :goodpost:

Truer words were never spoken. Legal issues are complex; crowd-sourcing an answer might help narrow down the issues and lead the OP to look in the right direction but may also lead to disaster if not accompanied by appropriate professional advice (not necessarily a lawyer but an individual who is a subject expert and authorized to provide the advice)

By the way - FTFY although maybe you meant 'heresy' - that might fit too  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## JesseWZ (14 Jul 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> By the way - FTFY although maybe you meant 'heresy' - that might fit too  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



Damn lawyers...  >


----------



## Mediman14 (15 Jul 2014)

Thanks to all for your input.
   Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
       The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2014)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Thanks to all for your input.
> Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
> The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?



I'm going to suggest you call the Duty JAG and get it from the horses mouth. At the very least, speak to your Unit or Base SME. What you're seeking is a legal opinion, not a best guess scenario from anonymous posters on the internet who don't even know what the complaint is, who's involved and who don't have a clear picture of both sides of the scenario.

You're just asking for trouble by following any advice from any anonymous source.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2014)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Thanks to all for your input.
> Here's the story. A complaint was launched (I suspect it was revenge for a punishment for not obeying commands), it went up to the CoC. The CO sat on it for several days, then decided to let someone outside the unit investigate (as rumours in this unit is horrible!). The member was removed from the workplace without any explaination why. pretty much sat in Limbo for 4 months. The CSM approached , his response was " I don't know anything". The CO was appproached 3 times and said the same answer as the CSM.
> The interview came 4 months after sitting in limbo, not knowing anything at all. And ofcourse alot, if not all was taken out of context with some twisted ideas of the truth. Should this be played out before taking any action?



 ???

I can't make much sense of what you posted, but will give it a try.

Again, both the Complainant and the Respondent have full rights to know what has been said about them, and by whom.  Anyone else would not be privy to all disclosures, so it would be likely that the CSM and CO knew nothing, and wouldn't until the investigation came to some form of conclusions/resolution/termination.  It is a rather drastic measure, but one that can be exercised, to remove a member from the workplace during an investigation.  That may indicate a very poisoned work environment, as indicated by the innuendo that you indicate is being spread around.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jul 2014)

I'm not even sure that you should be discussing this on the forum at all, based on what you posted.  I also don't think you should post any more details openly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jul 2014)

Which is as good advice as one can get methinks.
Locked


----------

