• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,086
Points
1,160
I'll guess Ghomeshi's attorney, same lady that represented the ex VCDS????
No.

Mgen Fortin’s lawyer has already been identified earlier in this thread. The focus is on litigation (offence), not defence.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
443
Points
910
No more posing to be a 'gunner' on a helicopter for that hero shot to post on social media, while pretending to be Rambo with Aviator glasses on. Oh, and the hand written notes
And that was news 5 days ago. You're on a roll. Thank you Mike, for the Ignore function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJP

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
202
Points
560
Hmmmm...I guess a precedent set with the previous VCDS under Vance, is what brought this one. Anyhoo....

For those keeping track at home there are now 8 GoFo's implicated in either sexual/harrasment/leadership misconduct who have either since retired, been relieved from their position or are currently under investigation.

  • Gen Vance (Former CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
  • Adm MacDonald (CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
  • LGen Rouleau (VCDS - Leadership Misconduct)
  • VAdm Edmundson (Comd MILPERSCOM - Rape)
  • MGen Fortin (Vaccine Rollout - Sexual Misconduct)
  • MGen Dawe (Comd CANSOFCOM - leadership misconduct, wrote letter of support for soldier convicted of rape twice)
  • VAdm Baines - Temporary Leave (Comd RCN - Leadership Misconduct)
  • BGen Bernard (2/IC Vaccine Rollout - Racist Slur in Workplace)
Edit:

This also doesn’t include those who quietly retired like Coates. Did I miss anyone?
Should we just make up Bingo cards with the names of the GO/FO who are left on them?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Hmmmm...I guess a precedent set with the previous VCDS under Vance, is what brought this one. Anyhoo....

For those keeping track at home there are now 8 GoFo's implicated in either sexual/harrasment/leadership misconduct who have either since retired, been relieved from their position or are currently under investigation.

  • Gen Vance (Former CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
  • Adm MacDonald (CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
  • LGen Rouleau (VCDS - Leadership Misconduct)
  • VAdm Edmundson (Comd MILPERSCOM - Rape)
  • MGen Fortin (Vaccine Rollout - Sexual Misconduct)
  • MGen Dawe (Comd CANSOFCOM - leadership misconduct, wrote letter of support for soldier convicted of rape twice)
  • VAdm Baines - Temporary Leave (Comd RCN - Leadership Misconduct)
  • BGen Bernard (2/IC Vaccine Rollout - Racist Slur in Workplace)
Edit:

This also doesn’t include those who quietly retired like Coates. Did I miss anyone?

I think Friday should be considered in there as well for leadership failings, I guess he also just quietly retired but the accusations were not insignificant (far worse than Coates).

Meinzinger was also accused in the same article of essentially sitting on an issue until it became public. Not as bad as Friday but unfortunately it's the culture of responding to issues by humming, hawing, and ultimately doing nothing, unless it becomes public, that has gotten us here, so it's also worth noting.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,487
Points
1,040

Good article about the need for reforms in the military justice system
We have a military justice system (including the MPs) that is 99 44/100ths % free from the interference of the chain of command. There are two exceptions:

One is the summary trial system which is there for a very good reason - to allow commanding officers to enforce low level offence disciplinary issues quickly and efficiently. The problem here is that we tend to merge the low level disciplinary system with the high level criminal one and as such the two are confused. The fact that a CO can give penal sanctions doesn't help the distinction. We moved to fix this years ago but .... I guess there simply aren't enough people in Ottawa to do the job :D

The second is that there are gaps in the system which allow good idea ferries to come up with things like putting the independent judiciary into the chain of command so that there is a CO, or leaving the law in such a state that it's nigh onto impossible to try a judge or very senior officer.

It's not like the legal branch hasn't been dealing with this crap since even before the Charter came into effect. We just can't seem to shed ourselves of the little dumb gaps.

I really hate seeing COs stripped of their powers. We're taking people who we entrust with life and death decisions over their troops and are telling them we don't trust them to get a summary trial for dirty boots right or to throw a troop into the digger for drunkenness. The Supreme Court understood that forty some years ago when it validated the military justice system in general - several times.

Sigh! We truly are a very stupid people.

Here's hoping the next of the dozens of amendments to the NDA that we've already done will finally please the reporters.

🍻
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
597
Points
890

Good article about the need for reforms in the military justice system
I was unaware about something mentioned in the article - that only the NIS can actually lay charges? Other MP's can only recommend charges?

I didn't know about that? What do non NIS members do then? (Not being facetious or sarcastic. Can someone expand on this part for me?)
 
Last edited:

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
I was unaware about something mentioned in the article - that only the NIS can actually lay charges? Other MP's can only recommend charges?

I didn't know about that? What do non NIS members do then? (Not being facetious or sarcastic. Can someone expand on this part for me?)
They turn the file over to the mbr's unit and the unit does the charge. Depending on the charge or ability to elect they either do the summary trial or it is referred to court martial.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
597
Points
890
They turn the file over to the mbr's unit and the unit does the charge. Depending on the charge or ability to elect they either do the summary trial or it is referred to court martial.
Sorry to ask what might seem like an obvious question to some here, just wanting to clarify - does that include Criminal Code charges?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
Strictly speaking, no, but practically speaking, yes.

Usually a CAF member will be charged under NDA 130 which can include any CC charge.

A pure CC charge would not be handled by the military justice system.

However, a pure CC charge would also mean that the CAF would not (normally) provide legal assistance.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
531
Points
1,040
good idea ferries
As always, enjoy your posts, but got a genuine belly laugh out of this typo. May be getting a bit punchdrunk from working on something too long, but think I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas, and will have to suggest that any time there is a govt competition for names (a la Boaty McBoatyface).
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,487
Points
1,040
As always, enjoy your posts, but got a genuine belly laugh out of this typo. May be getting a bit punchdrunk from working on something too long, but think I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas, and will have to suggest that any time there is a govt competition for names (a la Boaty McBoatyface).
🤦‍♂️ I'm hoping it was an autocorrect thing.

🍻
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,152
Points
940
I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas
I, for one, am always supportive of ship names a la The Culture from Iain M. Banks ;)

(and SpaceX, but they're Culture fans too)
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
597
Points
890
Strictly speaking, no, but practically speaking, yes.

Usually a CAF member will be charged under NDA 130 which can include any CC charge.

A pure CC charge would not be handled by the military justice system.

However, a pure CC charge would also mean that the CAF would not (normally) provide legal assistance.
This post clears up SOOOO MUCH CONFUSION I had about the current 'crisis', and where some of these claims that complaints/investigations were being interfered with by a member's CoC. It all makes a lot more sense now.


About a year ago, the Chief of Sheriff's Branch here in Alberta, along with a senior Criminal Intelligence officer, did a very good & very blunt presentation to various members. Some of the members in attendance were RCMP, Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Conservation, Communications Officers, etc.

They were both very blunt and clear that if ANYBODY in the CoC, including themselves, tried to interfere with an investigation - to record as much information as possible, and execute on what we felt was appropriate. They encouraged the use of e-mails or letters when a member of our CoC was communicating directly about an investigation, whether it be inquiring or giving us guidance and direction.

The idea wasn't to create distrust among members, or because the senior guys didn't trust us. Quite the opposite. They wanted to run a tight ship when it came to ethics & conduct, and have it be well known among members AND the public. Public trust was paramount, and they didn't want any of us to ever suspect or feel like the leadership was above the Code of Conduct or the law.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
523
Points
960
There's a distinct difference between interfering, and asking for an update on progress. A distinction too many people don't recognize. Too often, once things are referred to the MP/NIS, they go into a black hole. It makes it very difficult to reassure alleged victims that their case is being taken seriously when everyone is on radio silence. A recent case I was stick handling took 18 months before the report was released to the unit. You know how many updates either the complainant or CO got along the way?
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
This post clears up SOOOO MUCH CONFUSION I had about the current 'crisis', and where some of these claims that complaints/investigations were being interfered with by a member's CoC. It all makes a lot more sense now.


About a year ago, the Chief of Sheriff's Branch here in Alberta, along with a senior Criminal Intelligence officer, did a very good & very blunt presentation to various members. Some of the members in attendance were RCMP, Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Conservation, Communications Officers, etc.

They were both very blunt and clear that if ANYBODY in the CoC, including themselves, tried to interfere with an investigation - to record as much information as possible, and execute on what we felt was appropriate. They encouraged the use of e-mails or letters when a member of our CoC was communicating directly about an investigation, whether it be inquiring or giving us guidance and direction.

The idea wasn't to create distrust among members, or because the senior guys didn't trust us. Quite the opposite. They wanted to run a tight ship when it came to ethics & conduct, and have it be well known among members AND the public. Public trust was paramount, and they didn't want any of us to ever suspect or feel like the leadership was above the Code of Conduct or the law.
I do recall a Sgt MP investigating an offence and he was continually "bothered" by the CoC (in 3VP). All he would ask is "Are you ordering me to stop the investigation?" Of course, the answer was always "no carry on." Now this was back in the early 90s and I cannot remember the outcome.
 
Top