Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[daftandbarmy]

That's being rolled out nationally, it's not an Esquimalt initiative.

Even better

 

[lenaitch]

That would almost certainly not be necessary. A PO to a police service for an existing police file will only furnish documents or data… that are already in the hands of a police service. Any intrusion on the reasonable expectation of privacy by the state has already happened. There’s no articulable reasonable expectation of privacy that precludes one police service sharing the fruits of its investigation with another for valid law enforcement purposes. Applicable provincial and federal privacy legislation already allow that sharing; federally, for instance. It’s 8(2)(e) of the Privacy Act.

I’ve seen judicial authorizations against police services in, broadly three occasions:

1) Seeking police records that are not fruits of an investigation and were collected for some less intrusive purpose, such as a production order for a police employee’s security clearance package when they’re being investigated for corruption

2) Seeking a Search Warrant to expand the scope of data that can be reviewed on an electronic device. For example, a police service seizes a device and examines its contents for evidence of organized retail theft, and unexpectedly finds data showing evidence of murder in another jurisdiction. That other jurisdiction would get a copy of the data but not look at it til they get a new warrant with expanded scope.

3) The niche case that fills me with rage, police receiving proactive and voluntary child porn disclosures from groups like NCMEC, which contain IP addresses. Police will lock it away and obtain a production order to serve on themselves to bring that voluntary disclosure through judicial review due to the presence of IP addresses, which in Bykovets the SCC found to attract a reasonable expectation of privacy.

And, once, a bank overdelivered in response to my production order and sent me copies of bank drafts I had not yet asked for and didnmt yet have grounds to. When I saw them I realized immediately they were good evidence, so I locked them in my cabinet, and a few days later triumphantly served my Staff Sergeant with a copy of the search warrant I had obtained for my own filing cabinet. That was funny and dumb.

But anyway, I’ve both shared and received investigation information with various other police services, municipal, provincial and federal. It’s generally no issue, just know the section of applicable law permitting the sharing.

Edit to add: I just remembered an instructor's line he said in a Fraud course: 'the reason for seizin'.

sure you can share the investigation- and maybe you covered it, but sharing it for the purposes of discipline and using the documentation? How does that fit in? That’s where I would be a little lost

maybe it’s nothing

Part of the reason I raised it was I've never been quite clear on how the courts consider military police and the scope of their authority and I'm not very familiar with their scope of authority under the NDA. Information exchanged between different public police members for law enforcement purposes is much clearer but, as Booter says, public police sharing law enforcement information with MPs for non-criminal investigative matters might be more problematic

No necessarily a direct example, but when I was involved in investigative matters that flowed from regulatory enforcement, such as business/financial regulations, healthcare, etc. it was common to obtain judicial authorization because some of the information a person might disclose to their regulator would be compelled (i.e. sumbission of financial statements in order to get a permit) and disclosed not for the purpose of a criminal investigation. Again, not a direct comparison. It is somewhat similar to the practice of taking a cautioned statement for break and enter then using it in a homicide investigation. The jeopardy of the reason changed. It might not make the statement de facto inadmissible, but why take the chance?

The Court's general view is that judicial authorization is the default approach to satisfying Charter Sec. 8. At the risk of raising the bar unnecessarily high, for all it costs, I think I would still I would still do it if, for no other reason than to cut off an avenue of defence.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I might be getting too old, but would the OC care about this and/or do anything about it?

If there's career implications I'd say yes. I've sat through orders and other briefs from OCs that sound more like business meetings than military operations. Maybe rampant sexual misconduct investigations is bad for the CV and LinkedIn?

If that actually happened I'm guessing that SNCO should be in a world of hurt IMHO...

It happens a lot. The outgoing commandant from CFLRS was talking about it and how they're charging instructors for it. I've seen it a number of times myself.

 

[Jarnhamar]

sure you can share the investigation- and maybe you covered it, but sharing it for the purposes of discipline and using the documentation? How does that fit in? That’s where I would be a little lost

maybe it’s nothing

That's where I would be lost too. I can't imagine the RCMP sharing investigation information and records obtained through production orders with someone's supervisor with a view to disciplinary purposes.

Would the threshold for service infractions only being a balance of probabilities (vs beyond a reasonable doubt) be an issue?

I don’t recall what information military police shared with members units but I don't think it's very much.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Not to agree / disagree, as I am not an expert.

I think most police in Canada are unionized. Police , like any other emploees , can't be drafted , and can quit anytime.

But , wouldn't it be different for the CAF in that , although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.

When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.

VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".

If that is how it would work?

What good will a union do then?

Keep in mind the CAF is basically unionized.

Grievance procedures, restrictions on what can and cannot be done by who based on policies/positions, clearly defined pay based off job and seniority, lawyers/assisting officers to help you if your charged, etc.

Not very different from a union at all. The only thing that a union would bring which is drastically different for the CAF would be the ability for members to directly advocate for different policies/compensation.

Now is that worth paying union dues since striking would not be allowed? Likely not.

Unions can be good, just as they can be bad. The CAF already has most the benefits a union can provide without the negatives.

 

[lenaitch]

Keep in mind the CAF is basically unionized.

Grievance procedures, restrictions on what can and cannot be done by who based on policies/positions, clearly defined pay based off job and seniority, lawyers/assisting officers to help you if your charged, etc.

Not very different from a union at all. The only thing that a union would bring which is drastically different for the CAF would be the ability for members to directly advocate for different policies/compensation.

Now is that worth paying union dues since striking would not be allowed? Likely not.

Unions can be good, just as they can be bad. The CAF already has most the benefits a union can provide without the negatives.

I guess one of the biggest impact would be a benefits and compensation package that has a fixed term and mandatory renewal process rather than depending on the good graces of TB.

A lot of workplaces have employee relation procedures that mirror collective agreements. As I've mentioned, the scope of what a CA - what a union or association can bargain for - is determined by the applicable legislation. In my former Association, pensions were not negotiable, until they were, and things like equipment, dress, etc. are not.

 

[mariomike]

Keep in mind the CAF is basically unionized.

Grievance procedures, restrictions on what can and cannot be done by who based on policies/positions, clearly defined pay based off job and seniority, lawyers/assisting officers to help you if your charged, etc.

Not very different from a union at all. The only thing that a union would bring which is drastically different for the CAF would be the ability for members to directly advocate for different policies/compensation.

Now is that worth paying union dues since striking would not be allowed? Likely not.

Unions can be good, just as they can be bad. The CAF already has most the benefits a union can provide without the negatives.

Right.

The emergency services in our town unionized ( associations for police and fire ) on three separate dates in 1917 and 1918.

Are unions good or bad? Depends on one's point of view , I suppose .

How's it going with the RCMP?

Only thing I know for sure is, by the time I retired, our collective agreement had improved substantially .

And , never had to go on strike.

As far as the CAF goes ,

although it hasn't happened since 1945, there may come a time "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" when civilians are drafted into the CAF.

When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.

VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".

My question was,

What good will a union do then?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Keep in mind the CAF is basically unionized.

Especially the WOs & Sgts Mess