# Judge Advocate General has gone 3 years without filing reports to Def Minister



## George Wallace (30 May 2014)

This doesn't look good, and not a good reflection on our bureaucracy.  Especially disconcerting is that this is the top man in the Military Justice system.




Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> Maj.-Gen. Blaise Cathcart faces examination in Nova Scotia
> 
> By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: May 30, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 30, 2014 5:00 AM ET
> 
> ...




More on LINK


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "The only thing they can do ethically is resign," Drapeau said.


   :rofl:

.....or they can just keep their snouts in the trough.  Any folks betting on the way this plays out?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Any folks betting on the way this plays out?



Nope!  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (30 May 2014)

Sure earned that promotion to MGen?  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 May 2014)

I wonder what would happen if I as a lowly PO2 Sup Tech just stopped doing part of my job...  

Armyvern...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2014)

Even better:


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I wonder what would happen if I as a lowly PO2 Sup Tech just stopped doing part of my job *required by law*...


----------



## Loachman (30 May 2014)

If one cannot respect the law that governs one, how can one sit in judgement of others?


----------



## Tibbson (30 May 2014)

On the other hand, I have to give him some credit.  He sat there in front of everyone and owned up to the issue stating he was not just the superintendent of military justice but also the government's lead adviser on military law matters. All that work, he said, required him to set priorities and consequently the reports were let slip.  "So with the resources and the priorities that I have at my disposal, I made those decisions and I made them knowing full well the gravity of those decisions".

Some will no doubt see that as an excuse however I view it as a statement by an officer who felt he had competing priorities and he made a choice what to do and what to let slide.  Doesn't sound like the weaselly kind of statement I would have expected but the statement of someone who had a decision to make and who made it fully aware of what he was doing.  Was he wrong?  Not for me to say but I really don't see what a difference the reports would have made.  Then again, politicians will no doubt use it as a way out as they get questioned but that is what they do best, deflect and blame.

On a related note, MGen Cathcart is a member of the Nova Scotia Bar Association and they have announced today they will be investigating whether of not the MGen violated any law society rules.  A well known Halifax laywer, Derrell Pink, is the head of the Bar Assn and if anyone knows Mr Pink they know he loves every opportunity he gets to take on the Military.

Of course, Mr Drapeau has known about the missing reports for some time now (althpugh he didnt "break the story" for some reason) because he claims he needed the reports to finish his next book.  I'm sure he is expecting this to improve sales now.


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> All that work, he said, required him to set priorities and consequently the reports were let slip.


.....for _three_ years, and counting....  He must be exhausted.  : 




> .... I really don't see what a difference the reports would have made.


Every time you hear the expression "government transparency," this is what they're talking about;  whether you understand or value the reports is irrelevant.


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2014)

Okay. Time to throw a few facts into the mix.

First of all has anyone ever read these reports? Notwithstanding that they are statutorily mandated (and yes I do know what that means and what should happen) very few people look at these things. They mostly get a superficial review to see if there is anything exciting in them (which there never is) and then get shelved.

Again if you read these things you will see that about 80% of them is boilerplate stuff that one can mostly cut and paste from the previous years review. The remaining 20% is justice system statistics. These are very manpower intensive in collecting. The court martial ones aren't too difficult but the summary trial ones are very hard to get from the units notwithstanding that there is a mandate that they send them to their AJAGs in a timely manner.

When I worked in Ottawa from 2006 to 2009 on the JAG's Comprehensive Information Management System one of my mandates was to produce a system that automated the gathering of mil justice statistics. Unfortunately by the time that I left the project due to CRA, the system was not completed and in fact the contract for the key component that would allow gathering statistics (the case management system) fell through (after two years in the tendering system) and it didn't look like the contract could be revived within the projects lifetime. My successor was left in the unfortunate situation of having to see what (if anything) could be done to create a case management system out of the toolsets which we had obtained for both the Records and Knowledge Management Systems.

I don't want to be seen as making excuses here but over the last two decades the demand for legal services from the field (which includes JAG's clients in Ottawa) has expanded tremendously and while the legal branch had grown, demand for services outstrips the resources available. There is, IMHO, a significant shortfall in support staff, within the office of the JAG (Civilian lawyers generally work on a one lawyer to one support staff ratio while within JAG the ratio is frequently 5 or 6 legal officers per support staff) The result is that legal officers spend valuable hours doing necessary clerical which takes away from their providing legal advice. When a General or the Minister calls a legal officer he wants a legal opinion RFN, not some time down the road. As a result the entire office works on priorities which often requires that tasks of a lesser priority get set aside.

Please remember that the CoC understands this, has been told about the delays and accepts the situation. This news article didn't arise because the Minister or the CDS said "Hey where's our report?". This article comes as a result of the usual gang of critics who make it their mission in life to make a fuss over things which (again notwithstanding their statutory necessity) have really very little importance in the real world.

One further comment; the Office of the JAG does not sit in judgement of others - that's the role of the Office of the Chief Military Judge who does not belong to JAG, DMP or DDCS.

One last comment; I know Blaise Cathcart personally. He's earned his promotion.

 :cheers:


----------



## armyvern (30 May 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I wonder what would happen if I as a lowly PO2 Sup Tech just stopped doing part of my job...
> 
> Armyvern...



I would cause your ass to be charged.  Drafting up the RDP now ...   >


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2014)

I think FJAG has brushed upon the important issues here.  The JAG wouldn't personally write those reports; he would sign off on them.  From what FJAG has said, the support staff is sadly lacking and unable to effectively compile those reports.  The large number of civilian lawyers, some of whom may only be working on short term contracts, would only add to the problems of compiling such reports.   Common problem with our 'Bureaucracy', not just in the CAF, but in the Public Civil Service as well, where we often find 'one person doing the work of ten' and 'contractors popping in and out, leaving little or nor records of what they have done'.  

Here we see a problem identified, and like problems identified in other areas, we are not likely to see a remedy anytime soon.  The Government will play on the general public's opinion that the bureaucracy is too large and cumbersome and will cut rather than increase staffs.   :


----------



## Old Sweat (30 May 2014)

Apologies for the slight sidetrack. The old Part XI of the NDA, Aid of the Civil Power Regulations, required the CDS to submit a written report to the Secretary of State within 30 days of having received a requisition for assistance. The wording and practice were well out of date, but during the Oka mission that did not stop I don't know how many numpties from writing General de Chastelain to remind him that he was required to do exactly that and they were prepared to see him face justice if he failed to comply with the NDA in that regard.


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ......80% of them is boilerplate stuff that one can mostly cut and paste from the previous years review. The remaining 20% is justice system statistics.


So these reports only require 20% of the effort of actually drafting a complete report, yet he still couldn't be bothered.....year after year.

I guess we have to hope for the NS Bar Association to address this, since the uniformed legal mindset is obviously that just saying "fuck it" is an acceptable option.   And in any other classification, administrative and/or disciplinary action would be taken, but in this case not only was he really, _really_ busy, but 'I know him and he's a cool dude, so it's OK.'  :not-again:



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I don't want to be seen as making excuses here [fail] but over the last two decades the demand for legal services from the field (which includes JAG's clients in Ottawa) has expanded tremendously.......


And lawyers aren't remotely responsible for that......  :  

Forgive my absence of sympathy for the onerous workload the ambulance-chasers brought onto themselves.


----------



## Tibbson (30 May 2014)

FJAG brings up some excellent points.  People assume one can snap their fingers and generate the reports and stats but its not that simple.  I remember when I joimed the MP Branch there was talk of some mystical reporting system that "someone" was working on buti t was still another 15 years befor SAMPIS was purchased and put into place allowing centralized reporting and record keeping across the Branch.  I know what it cost us and the resources it takes to maintai  and use so its no wonder the JAG Branch doesn't have the same type of system.

I'm sure there is no need to remind anyone here that we just came off a long period of deployed ops and I saw first hand how labour intensive that was on the legal branch.  Civil suits, legal liaison, detainee issues and inquiries, ROEs, international agreements, local and ops related contracts for services, damages and local restitution...all were very labour intensive legally.  Add to that any and all types of legal issues back here in Canada too numerous to mention and its no wonder a report that nobody reads (fully agreeing with FJAG) gets shoved to the back burner especially when one stops to consider the stats are available via CCJS if anyone had a need for them.

All this issue has done is chum the water for the same school of sharks (reporters, lawyers, special interest groups) who are always circling looking for a reason to strike.  Sure, because of them we need to be extra vigilant but if resources were taken for the reports then something else would have been a lower priority and they would feed on that instead.  We are done with deployed ops, the parades are done and the medals awarded...time to put the target back on all things DND.


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The JAG wouldn't personally write those reports; he would sign off on them.  From what FJAG has said, the support staff is sadly lacking and unable to effectively compile those reports.



Absolutely correct.

Each of DMP and DDCS is responsible for their own report.

For the overarching JAG report in my day the Director Law/Military justice, Policy and Research was responsible for the data work and much of the rest of the report. I note that since I have left DLaw/MJP&R has been broken into two offices DLaw/MJ-Strategic and DLaw/MJ-Operations. The former deals with the development of the overarching mil justice vision for the office while the later deals with day-to-day MJ matters - you should note that DLaw/MJ-Ops has specific responsibility for developing the annual report to the minister.

For Journeyman - you misread my comment. About 80% of the material "by volume" is easy to write boilerplate; about 20% of the material is statistical data that requires gathering, fact checking, collation, interpretation and presentation in a meaningful way. That 20% by volume is 95% of the work.

If you wish to understand priorities then consider the fact that one of the more important projects for the Mil Jus directorate is a way to come to grips with what has become a major systemic delay in bringing courts martial to trial. When I left I believe the average case took some 270 days from when the referral was received by DMP until the CM was completed (police investigation time and in-unit staffing would be on top of that time). Fixing this issue is not a simple matter as it includes stakeholders from the police, the prosecution, the defence and the judges all of whom have their own agendas and who need to protect the often opposing interests of the system and the accused. IMHO that is an output well worth spending time on.

But then again I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your moral outrage.

Just one further comment. I sat on the Manitoba Law Societies Complaints Investigation Committee for six years and have a pretty good idea how the NS Barristers' Society should handle this. (as an aside the NS Bar Association has nothing to do with this - its the Barristers' Society that handles complaints from the public - their complaints procedures are set out in their web site). In short I would be hard pressed to find that there was a breach of the Professional Code of Conduct here. Please look carefully at s. 9.3 of the NDA which merely requires that the JAG report annually to the Minister. The manner of the report is not specified. 

The JAG speaks with the Minister very frequently and I would expect he has reported and been given waivers to delay the submission of the written reports by the previous Minister but now that it's an issue before a parliamentary committee I can see why the new Minister has asked for their production. I also expect that the JAG has told the Minister what other projects will now have to be put on hold until these reports get done.

I would expect that the Law Society of NS would consider this a matter as between the Minister and the JAG and outside their scope of enforcement and as already being dealt with by the parties - mediation of a resolution is always a priority for a law society and here it seems the matter is resolving itself. There is no need for NSBS intervention or action.

What I really wonder about is who is the member of the public or the NS legal profession who is registering the complaint with the NSBS or is Darrel doing this on his own motion and for what purpose?

Anyway, as I said before, I don't wish to stand in the way of anyone's moral outrage.

 :cheers:


----------



## Tibbson (30 May 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> What I really wonder about is who is the member of the public or the NS legal profession who is registering the complaint with the NSBS or is Darrel doing this on his own motion and for what purpose?



Anyone out in Halifax who wants to take action against the military or who wants to hire their own lawyer for a CM knows to go for either of the Pink brothers so it does not shock me at all that Darrell has already spoken out.


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2014)

Frankly, I don't care what you think is worthwhile.  I care that, per the NDA, an officer of the court, appointed to the position of Judge Advocate General, is required by law to submit an annual report:



> Annual report
> 
> (2) The Judge Advocate General shall report annually to the Minister on the administration of military justice in the Canadian Forces.
> Marginal note:Tabling in Parliament
> ...



That the JAG said, essentially, "I ignore the law in setting my priorities." does not fill me with reassurance.

(Then again, I already doubted his judgement.  No barrister who works for the federal government should accept being named QC by any province - it creates a potential conflict of interest)


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Frankly, I don't care what you think is worthwhile.


_Shhhh_.....you'll just get blithely dismissed as well.  Calling them on thinking themselves 'above the law' is _mere_ moral outrage.


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2014)

I think this sums it up - taken from the bar exams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2014)

Part of his job, in my way of thinking, is to delegate and supervise his subordinates, the ones that should be preparing this stuff for his signature.

_It appears_ he is not an effective leader in that category.

Think of the shit storm that would be reaped upon any Commander who failed to provide his commands PERs or annual audit of the DA account. Should they also tell higher that they are too busy and that those reports really don't matter that much?

Just askin' cause it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Edit to add:

The Principles of Leadership

Achieve professional competence.

Appreciate your own strengths and limitations and pursue self-improvement. 

Seek and accept responsibility. Lead by example. 

Make sure that your followers know your meaning and intent, then lead them to the accomplishment of the mission. 

Know your soldiers and promote their welfare. 

Develop the leadership potential of your followers. 

Make sound and timely decisions. 

Train your soldiers as a team and employ them up to their capabilities. 

Keep your followers informed of the mission, the changing situation and the overall picture. 

(CFP 131(1), para 405)

This is the standard we hold MCpls to. Why not Generals?


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Then again, I already doubted his judgement.  No barrister who works for the federal government should accept being named QC by any province - it creates a potential conflict of interest)



All legal officers in the Canadian military are required to hold an active practising certificate with one the provincial law societies. 

The granting of a QC or an SC is the prerogative of a provincial government (via their lieutenant-governor - note too that the Federal government discontinued making their own appointments in 1993) and may be done under whatever conditions it considers appropriate. Generally it is an honour bestowed on a very limited number of lawyers who hold practising certificates within the province and are representative of a high standard of professionalism and/or community service. For a number of years now those provinces that award QCs have considered one of their own achieving the position of JAG as a meritorious event. Cathcart's predecessors BGen Ken Watkins and MGen Jerry Pitzul were awarded QCs. For that matter the prior Minister of Defence held a QC.

I really doubt that there is a conspiracy here to undermine the federal government by co-opting the JAGs with an honourary title. :Tin-Foil-Hat: Besides, any federal/provincial agreements or conflicts are handled by the Department of Justice lawyers, not the JAG.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2014)

Hmm.  Former MND and his JAG both honoured by the small, incestuous legal community of a shrinking, failing province.  If it's a meaningless trifle, it should be rejected as such; and if it's got some value associated with it, the code of ethics prohibits its acceptance.

And a limited number?  I seem to recall reading that there's a single tower in Toronto with more QCs than all of London England.


----------



## Transporter (30 May 2014)

I wish I could ignore everything that I'm legally required to do without fear of reprisal from above. Well, I guess we're only talking military justice... can't be _that_ important.


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2014)

And yet, not a glimmer of understanding of why lawyers are held in such low regard; in fact, likely assuming that all 'right thinking' individuals must believe that we need more and more lawyers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2014)

I think part of the problem, following the tangent, is allowing these professional organizations (Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) to police themselves. They should come under common law the same as any other citizen. Too many times we've seen miniscule sanctions handed to a member of these groups, by their _"peers"_ where anyone else outside of these societies (the common man) would be having air pumped to their cells.

I had a lawyer who was sanctioned by the law society on at least a half dozen instances. These include breach of trust, embezzlement, fraud and a number of minor violations besides. He still practiced while sanctioned. They eventually called him to account but he retired before his peers could disqualify him. Like I say, for his crimes, anyone else would have spent time in prison.

*"Better call Saul !!!"*


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Former MND and his JAG both honoured by the small, incestuous legal community of a shrinking, failing province.  If it's a meaningless trifle, it should be rejected as such; and if it's got some value associated with it, the code of ethics prohibits its acceptance.
> 
> And a limited number?  I seem to recall reading that there's a single tower in Toronto with more QCs than all of London England.



You probably recall wrong and besides we're talking apples and oranges.

Most provinces appoint roughly just under 1% of their eligible lawyers as QCs each year. 

In the UK there are around 12,000 barristers and they appoint around a hundred annually - that's just under 1%. This of course adds up over the years and the population runs at about 8-9% of all barristers being QCs. 

There are a lot more solicitors in the UK than barristers (as of 2013 127,000 or ten for every barrister) They however are not eligible for appointment.

The apples and oranges part is that in the UK you are either a barrister or a solicitor and only barristers are eligible to become QCs. Here in Canada in all the common law jurisdictions every lawyer is a "barrister and solicitor" so the >1% applies to a larger pool. 

The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario to the rest of the world) has just over 40,000 lawyers with about 21,000 in private practice and the rest in government, corporations, etc. I haven't been able to find any specific references as to how many QCs there are in ON except that in the 1960s they were appointing about 90 per year. I figure that would be up to a couple of hundred by the time they stopped the practice in 1985 so maybe a total of 3,000 at that time and slowly dying off.

So, yes, it would seem that Ontario probably has more QCs than the UK but even Toronto does not have a building with over a thousand QCs in it.

I must correct my earlier post in that it appears that the federal government is once again appointing QCs. Six were appointed last Dec including Col Pat Gleeson who is the DJAG MJ&AL (yes DLaw/MJ-Ops works for him and I expect that will start a whole new round of comments)

Incidentally MGen Cathcart has just been reappointed for another three year term as JAG by the new Minister.

 :stirpot:

Finally, one can debate the issue of whether there should be QCs or not. We had that debate at length in Manitoba when I was there and I've heard all the arguments pro and con and all I can say is - I've got mine Jack and they can't take it away from me. That may skew my viewpoint here a trifle.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem, following the tangent, is allowing these professional organizations (Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) to police themselves. They should come under common law the same as any other citizen. Too many times we've seen miniscule sanctions handed to a member of these groups, by their _"peers"_ where anyone else outside of these societies (the common man) would be having air pumped to their cells.
> 
> I had a lawyer who was sanctioned by the law society on at least a half dozen instances. These include breach of trust, embezzlement, fraud and a number of minor violations besides. He still practiced while sanctioned. They eventually called him to account but he retired before his peers could disqualify him. Like I say, for his crimes, anyone else would have spent time in prison.
> 
> *"Better call Saul !!!"*



Lawyers do go to jail when their actions are criminal acts. I know several who have been there.

Law Societies are created by each provincial legislature to manage the professional standards of the lawyers (and in some cases paralegals) within their jurisdiction. The intent is to protect the public from unscrupulous or incompetent lawyers.

They do this by having a requirement for insurance in place so that a client is indemnified when their lawyer is negligent and a reimbursement fund to ensure that clients are indemnified when a lawyer steals from them.

Every law society has some form of complaints investigation committee and a discipline committee to prosecute and judge breaches of the Professional Code of Conduct. As I said above I've sat for 6 years on CIC and two years on Discipline in Manitoba. Hundreds of lawyers across Canada serve on these committees doing thousands of hours of free service in order to police the societies members. The maximum punishment however that is available is disbarment. Again, if the lawyer behaved in a criminal way the ordinary criminal justice system deals with that just like with every other citizen regardless of what the law society does.

Incidentally Manitoba publishes its discipline cases. You can find them here if you're interested http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/lawyer-regulation/discipline-case-digests. 

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> all I can say is - I've got mine Jack and they can't take it away from me.



Hence the problem with self-regulating professions - too much emphasis on collegiality at the expense of actually regulating the profession.  Indeed, one Ontario lawyer is currently facing sanction for daring to aggressively represent his client - seems the prosecution was thin skinned and didn't think another lawyer should dare to question his competence or motives in court.

Add to that the Star's recent series of articles disclosing how, even when criminal misconduct is identified, the Ontario Bar protects its own, and it's small wonder that lawyers are looked on with suspicion at the best of times.


Ontario also publishes its disciplinary files at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulatory_proceedings/.  However, it does not order lawyers to disclose they've been disbarred.  So, when my lawyer got the boot for "knowingly assisting in dishonesty or fraud", he sent out a letter dated a few days before the ruling announcing his retirement, forgetting to mention the whole disbarred thing. EDIT TO ADD: He's never faced criminal sanction for assisting in fraud.


----------



## MedCorps (31 May 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> I wish I could ignore everything that I'm legally required to do without fear of reprisal from above. Well, I guess we're only talking military justice... can't be _that_ important.



I guess now I have top cover for not forwarding any updates to my Unit Registry of Disciplinary Proceedings to the JAG Branch by the 7th day of each month IAW QR&O 107.15.  Whew... one less pesky regulatory requirement thing to worry about as a CO!  

MC


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2014)

I don't suppose pack drill and junior officer field training under the care of a attentive MWO can be done?


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hence the problem with self-regulating professions - too much emphasis on collegiality at the expense of actually regulating the profession.  Indeed, one Ontario lawyer is currently facing sanction for daring to aggressively represent his client - seems the prosecution was thin skinned and didn't think another lawyer should dare to question his competence or motives in court.
> 
> Add to that the Star's recent series of articles disclosing how, even when criminal misconduct is identified, the Ontario Bar protects its own, and it's small wonder that lawyers are looked on with suspicion at the best of times.
> 
> ...



I know I won't change your mind - somewhere deep down you seem to have suffered an incurable trauma - but at the risk of others believing that what you are saying is true, I'll take a stab at it.

The disciplinary process is not collegial; it is adversarial. The law society has its own prosecutors and forensic accountants that are engaged when a complaint is made. Lawyers are required to file responses to a complaint and failure to do so is in itself a disciplinary offence. That doesn't occur in other professions (although physicians have a similar process).

Lawyers are the only profession where the failure to treat other lawyers, the public or the courts with courtesy is a disciplinary offence. So is a failure to return phone calls. No other profession has such standards. There is no rule against representing a client aggressively. In fact the rules require is 

"5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must represent the client resolutely and 
honourably within the limits of the law, while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, 
courtesy, and respect.

What you are calling a lawyer representing his client "too aggressively" is undoubtedly one who has crossed the line between resolute representation of a client and personal attacks on another lawyer. A hearing will sort out whether the crown was thin skined or the defence lawyer an a**hole.

Since when does anyone care what the Toronto Star says?

No one would expect that a lawyer who has been disbarred would adequately advise his clients of that fact - that lawyer has already shown he can't be trusted. Rule 5-100(1) in Manitoba requires that the CEO of the Law Society MUST cause a public notice to be published in a newspaper in the area where the lawyer practised and to the remainder of the profession and to all other Canadian law societies if the lawyer has been found guilty of misconduct, conduct unbecoming or incompetence and been disbarred, suspended or allowed to resign.

In addition when a member is disbarred, suspended or allowed to retire, the society ensures that a custodian of that lawyer's files is appointed (if necessary by court order) to ensure that the lawyer's active clients continue to receive legal representation. A custodian must advise each client of the circumstances and that the client has the right to use the custodian as his/her legal counsel or choose any other lawyer to do so.

Finally as to the criminal charges thing, I'll just say this one more time: the law society is not a criminal prosecution arm, it's a disciplinary body. It is up to the police or the crown to lay criminal charges in appropriate circumstances and they do although unfortunately all too often the police and the crown consider such defalcations (as they do with many fraud disputes between ordinary citizens) to be a civil and not criminal matter. - that's not the fault of the law society but the criminal justice system in general.

Have a wonderful day.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2014)

Who cares what the collegial sanctions are? If they broke the law, or stepped outside the bounds of professionalism, they should be charged with a civil offence and made to answer in a court of law, in front of the public, not behind closed doors in front of their peers.


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who cares what the collegial sanctions are? If they broke the law, or stepped outside the bounds of professionalism, they should be charged with a civil offence and made to answer in a court of law, in front of the public, not behind closed doors in front of their peers.



Are you really reading my comments?

What I said is that it is up to the police and the provincial crown to determine if criminal charges are warranted on a case by case basis.

There are numerous disciplinary infractions (failure to return communications being but one) that have absolutely no criminal issue attached to them. 

Others like theft from a client's trust account are criminal and are prosecuted. I personally know of one who worked just up the street from me who was disbarred and also tried criminally and sent to jail for a year.

Criminal charges and disciplinary charges are apples and oranges although in appropriate circumstances they overlap and both are brought.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2014)

And I, personally, know one that did exactly that, more than once, and never saw a courtroom. His peers, thought they had punished him enough, at least twice.

And yes, I'm reading what you wrote. Elsewise, I wouldn't be responding. 

I admire your tenacity in defending your profession, however, you can't deny there's a certain amount of favoritism that goes with self appointed bodies. Things that aren't in the circle of influence to mere mortals and non ringknockers.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 May 2014)

In the meantime, and I am a bit underwhelmed that the issue did not arise among a group who mostly rail at useless bureaucracy, what real purpose does the annual report accomplish in an era of on-line postings and massive data availability? When was the requirement first enacted by Parliament and what was the intention? What are the alternatives to filing a paper report with the MND who then, I guess, tables it in the House of Commons? If, as FJAG has stated and I tend to accept his word for it, much of it is pro forma and the rest is filling in the blanks, surely there are better ways of employing the time of some highly qualified and presumably highly paid individuals.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In the meantime, and I am a bit underwhelmed that the issue did not arise among a group who mostly rail at useless bureaucracy, what real purpose does the annual report accomplish in an era of on-line postings and massive data availability? When was the requirement first enacted by Parliament and what was the intention? What are the alternatives to filing a paper report with the MND who then, I guess, tables it in the House of Commons? If, as FJAG has stated and I tend to accept his word for it, much of it is pro forma and the rest is filling in the blanks, surely there are better ways of employing the time of some highly qualified and presumably highly paid individuals.



I don't care if there are better ways; I care that, per the legislature, the JAG is required to do this.  It is not the role of the military to second-guess the legislature and ignore their direction.  It is a valid role for advisers within the military to make recommendations for changes and improvements.  But until the legislation is amended, it remains a requirement to obey it.

That the senior legal officer in the CAF (and his cheering section of other lawyers) doesn't seem to understand that he's not Sylvester Stallone is what is most troubling here - he is not the law; he is subject to the law and failing to uphold it.


Are the better ways?  Probably.  Should the JAG advise on making changes?  Definitely.  Could the JAG include in his annual report such recommendations to the Minister?  Yes.  But as long as the law says the JAG must do so, the JAG must do so.  Deliberately ignoring the law is not a characteristic one should look for in a senior legal advisor.


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2014)

Old Sweat

The requirement was put into the NDA in response to recommendation 5d of Dicksons' 1997 Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Police Investigation Services which called for an annual report on the state of the system of military justice by the JAG to both the Minister and the CDS.  Recommendation 6 called for the Minister to release the report to the public. The current wording in s. 9.3 of the NDA was as a result of the amendments to the Act carried out in 1998 immediately after the report was accepted. You may recall that Dickson's Group was formed as the result of issues which came to the surface during the Somalia Affair. As a side note - very many of the issues identified were known within DND but during this period the government refused over and over again to set aside time on the parliamentary agenda to introduce NDA amendments. Somalia turned that around in a big way. Many of the shortcomings that Dickson identified were ones identified by the legal and MP community themselves. 

My own opinion is that these provisions and many others that came about were to provide overall transparency. While I have offered reasons (but not excuses) for the delay in these reports I fully appreciate the poor optics that come out of this. 

Recceguy

What I will agree with is that there is undoubtedly a majority of the population which feels as you do that self governance of a profession is akin to letting the fox guard the chickencoop.

Having been extensively involved in the investigative and prosecution side of law society discipline I can tell you without hesitation that there was no favouritism being shown. More typically we were disgusted by the stupidity or avariciousness of our fellow members. Lawyers are like most people; generally well meaning and honest and believers in their obligations to their clients. When one of our own crosses the line we tend to turn on him.

There's one thing to add to this. Besides bad lawyers there are also bad clients. Some clients come into the legal process with false expectations of what can be accomplished in their case and they will turn on the lawyer when he fails to meet their expectations or refuses to follow an unethical course of conduct demanded by the client. There are always two sides to a complaint but usually the facts before the investigating committee will set out what the circumstances are. Sometimes complaints are dismissed, sometimes a solution is arbitrated without charges being necessary and sometimes charges are required because of the seriousness of the infraction.

Incidentally, in Manitoba, and most jurisdictions, these committees come from the elected benchers of the law society as well as members of the general public who are appointed as lay benchers. During my time the committee had some ten benchers on it with two of them lay benchers. These were excellent individuals who provided an invaluable outsiders' view during the investigative process.

I've always lived with the understanding that the majority of the public hates lawyers but like their own lawyer. Obviously those who've been screwed by a lawyer feel differently but luckily there are tens of thousands of satisfactory legal transactions for every one where a lawyer was negligent or unethical. It's that small fraction that taints the profession.

My tenacity, if you will, comes from the fact that I've worked extensively inside the system and know its procedures and the good people involved in it. I'll never say the system can't be improved; we made changes to the code and the act and the rules under the act continuously every time that we found a weakness that kept us from statutorily doing the right thing. I expect there will be more. 

Unfortunately I find that the staunchest critics of the system have only a passing familiarity of its elements but are nonetheless more than prepared to make extreme statements about it. I find this to be particularly true amongst the press who in my view are "jacks of all trades and masters of none" who leap on a situation and begin criticising and will seek out and find the usual band of contrarian lawyers who will be more than happy to spout off their moral outrage. There is no news value in saying "the law society does a great job 99% of the time" when instead you can look to one hard case which had a less than optimum outcome and say "The sky is falling! Kill all Lawyers!"

All that said I've been happily retired for five years now and no longer have a vested interest--just opinions.

I'm quite enjoying this thread. Most of the other threads have been a bit dull.

Both of you have a good one.

 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 May 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> One last comment; I know Blaise Cathcart personally. He's earned his promotion.



I know him too, and concur completely.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Jun 2014)

Maybe it's just me, but if it takes three years before anyone notices an annual report is adrift, maybe it's not required.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2014)

Fix it and move on.


----------



## Wolseleydog (1 Jun 2014)

FJAG: Serious  question for you -- why not simply submit reports that consisted of the content that *could* be generated within the reasonable amount of time that could be budgeted towards that work, perhaps including a statement explaining the inability to produce greater detail?

That strikes me as the obvious solution.  It meets the letter of the law, and at the very least gets formally on the record the JAG's position that more was not possible.

Just curious.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jun 2014)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> FJAG: Serious  question for you -- why not simply submit reports that consisted of the content that *could* be generated within the reasonable amount of time that could be budgeted towards that work, perhaps including a statement explaining the inability to produce greater detail?
> 
> That strikes me as the obvious solution.  It meets the letter of the law, and at the very least gets formally on the record the JAG's position that more was not possible.
> 
> Just curious.



Not really sure but I can offer this. I worked within JAG headquarters full time from summer 06 to summer 09 when three of these reports were being generated. I recall that each time there was a tremendous push on by DLaw/MJP&R to get stats in to review and finalize the reports etc all while doing the other things they had to do. In each case the reports were still behind and when I left in 09 the one for the previous year or so still hadn't been finalized. 

My business analyst and I met with them several times to define what their business cycle was in order to try to formulate a computerized system to assist with gathering and reporting the information. My recollection was that there was a very great emphasis being put on the accuracy of the report. This material was going to the Minister and Parliament and it was absolutely critical that there be no errors in it - delay was acceptable (if undesirable) while accuracy absolutely had to be there.

Both DMP and DDCS had their own independent systems for recording CMs (which did not interface and had discrepancies between the data) DLaw/MJP&R had their own database for Summary Trials based on the data forwarded to them by the AJAGs and Command LAs (here there were holes in the data and mismatches as well). Much of their work was error checking and follow up. There were legal reasons for keeping these three systems separated and we were searching out a way to overcome the legal impediments.

We were trying to build a comprehensive system that allowed data to be entered at the lowest level and error checked on the way through. By the time I left that was only in a definition phase and I don't believe was ever completed within the timespan of the project.

There were some good people working within the JAG's Information Systems cell but there was unfortunately a constant turnover which made maintaining the old legacy systems difficult. (This project was my first major in depth experience with the civil service career progression and hiring system and IMHO the entire thing is seriously broken - as is capital equipment acquisition)

 :cheers:


----------



## barrister4sale (1 Jun 2014)

The issue was simply procedural. But the Leftist critics delved too much on the substantive thereby presuming wrongdoing. Presumption of innocence! (I got only 2 years of law school so rebuttable)


----------



## Transporter (1 Jun 2014)

barrister4sale said:
			
		

> The issue was simply procedural. But the Leftist critics delved too much on the substantive thereby presuming wrongdoing. Presumption of innocence! (I got only 2 years of law school so rebuttable)



It is written in law. We are all duty bound to comply with laws, none more so than the JAG I should think. It is significantly more than "simply procedural". Whether the report is a waste of time or not is not JAG's decision to make. (I have 0 years of law school and I'm not interested in a rebuttal).


----------



## Tibbson (2 Jun 2014)

I notice Sec 9.3(2) states that the JAG "shall" report to the Minister annually.  Sec 9.3(3) goes on to say the Minister "shall" table the report within the first 15 days of Parliament sitting after the Minister recieves it.  Interesting how the politicians left themselves a way out but as others have said, they either didn't miss the reports, didn't care about them or they overlooked them and never bothered to ask.  

If the Minister forget about them and never asked where they were then obviously they were not that important.  If the Minister asked about them then I'm sure he was given an answer that satisfied him otherwise he would have told the JAG in no uncertain terms to get them submitted.  In any event, while the optics suck I see this more as a tempest in a teapot seized upon by those with a axe to grind or a name to make politically or otherwise.  I go back to Mr Drapeau, a lawyer with a stated mission to take down the military justice system and the MP.  He states he was waiting for the reports so he can finish his next book so why didnt he kick up a fuss two years ago when the first reports deadline was missed?


----------

