• 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

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
355
Points
1,010
Sexual misconduct? I’ll pass
I'll address this once and only once. There is no room on this forum for this type of inflammatory post. The vast majority of senior members and CAF members writ large serve their Country with honour and pride.

If you cannot keep your comments civil and follow site guidelines, there are other venues where you can have these types of discussion. This is a forum for professional discussions on Military Affairs and tone and content will be reflective of that.

If you have issues with specific leaders or conduct, you may voice them but your tone and content must respect site guidelines. Consider this your first warning.

HB

Army.ca Directing Staff
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
355
Points
1,010
Follow up to the above and for the remainder of the membership participating in the thread. Counter-trolling will also not be tolerated nor will inflammatory language against members.

Any members found in contravention of site guidelines in this thread will be warned and dealt with accordingly as the DS see fit.

For the record,

I am personally disgusted by the conduct of Military members at all rank levels who break the law, violate the CSD and don't respect their fellow CAF members. I am as interested in seeing justice carried out as some of you are.

I would ask though that when discussing these issues, you keep it civil and respect site guidelines. If you can't do that, I will ban you from participating in this thread.

Regards,

HB

Army.ca Directing Staff
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,153
Points
910
Follow up to the above and for the remainder of the membership participating in the thread. Counter-trolling will also not be tolerated nor will inflammatory language against members.

Any members found in contravention of site guidelines in this thread will be warned and dealt with accordingly as the DS see fit.

For the record,

I am personally disgusted by the conduct of Military members at all rank levels who break the law, violate the CSD and don't respect their fellow CAF members. I am as interested in seeing justice carried out as some of you are.

I would ask though that when discussing these issues, you keep it civil and respect site guidelines. If you can't do that, I will ban you from participating in this thread.

Regards,

HB

Army.ca Directing Staff
Roger. Got it and I'm guilty of it too.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
175
Points
480
Alternatively, we have only partial information. I cannot imagine the decision to charge the former CDS criminally is taken lightly and without running it past counsel first.
Yeah I don’t know. The Norman affair and many other events going on in today’s government have me wondering a lot lately.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
149
Points
710
Well, going back to the alleged victim's testimony in the HoC, she was asked if Vance ever instructed her to lie about their relationship. KB's answer was that "yes, it's recorded, and the CFNIS has the recordings."

I guess I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time, but I guess we'll probably get to hear that conversation....
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,457
Points
890
Well, going back to the alleged victim's testimony in the HoC, she was asked if Vance ever instructed her to lie about their relationship. KB's answer was that "yes, it's recorded, and the CFNIS has the recordings."

I guess I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time, but I guess we'll probably get to hear that conversation....
If it goes to trial, yeah, we likely will.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,848
Points
1,060
That would be for civil proceedings right? The criminal case will go regardless I think.

If the Trudeau government doesn't want this dragged out in the press during an election campaign, I'm sure they'll find enough petty cash to make it go away on behalf of their former CDS.
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
28
Points
330
Would we get to hear the tapes at trial? If Vance was not aware he was being taped, did he have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and would his rights have been violated? While they could be used to further the investigation, can they legally be admitted as evidence?

If the tapes are admissible, would he be better to plead out for some minor punishment rather than have them on the official record?
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,634
Points
1,160
Canadian laws permit recording of a conversation as long as at least one of the parties knows it is being recorded. The recording party does not have to explicitly advise any other parties in the conversation of the recording.
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
276
Points
910
The Change of Command ceremony to Adm MacDonald was 14 Jan 2021. This charge is for incidents between 1-3 Feb 2021. Depending on when his actual release date was from the CAF, he may have allegedly committed this offence as General (ret'd) Vance, not the CDS.
While not t CDS, he had not been released at that time.
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
175
Points
480
So, to be a bit of a broken record, are there no criminal or service charges at all directly related to the conduct of Vance's personal relationship with KB while they both served which she made the complaints about? Setting aside the obstruct charge, I think that is pretty significant at this point, don't you think? Are we to take that to mean during the lengthy relationship between JV and KB there were no offence(s) committed?

On the obstruction, did Vance ask KB not to say anything to avoid personal/family embarrassment or did he foresee a criminal probe being initiated in the future that he intended to obstruct?
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
548
Points
910
If the Trudeau government doesn't want this dragged out in the press during an election campaign, I'm sure they'll find enough petty cash to make it go away on behalf of their former CDS.
PM Trudeau regarding VAdm Norman (February 2018): "I expect this case will inevitably go to trial."

PM Trudeau regarding Gen (ret'd) Vance (August 2021): "I'm sure this can be settled without the need for a trial."
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,848
Points
1,060
PM Trudeau regarding VAdm Norman (February 2018): "I expect this case will inevitably go to trial."

PM Trudeau regarding Gen (ret'd) Vance (August 2021): "I'm sure this can be settled without the need for a trial."

remake bingo GIF
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,457
Points
890
What other options are there? Not familiar with how the process could unfold.
The other possibilities being a deal based on a guilty please, or a stay of proceedings, or withdrawal of the charge.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,010
Points
1,010
The other possibilities being a deal based on a guilty please, or a stay of proceedings, or withdrawal of the charge.
Thx.

I suspect that this will go to court, given the attention that it has received, and the personalities involved, but I have been wrong before. I appreciate the info.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
149
Points
710
So, to be a bit of a broken record, are there no criminal or service charges at all directly related to the conduct of Vance's personal relationship with KB while they both served which she made the complaints about? Setting aside the obstruct charge, I think that is pretty significant at this point, don't you think?

No I don't think that's significant. Why do you think it's so significant?

Obstruction of justice is a separate piece, with separate elements that need to proven. Truthfully, if this was just an inappropriate, but consensual relationship, obstruction of justice is far worse.

If Vance was willing to stand up and be counted for his actions, why the hell is he calling this person to tell them to lie?

I actually didn't think the relationship bit was going to result in any charges given how subjective it is and very much "he said/she said" from what we know, but the fact that Vance decided he'd call her and start telling her what to say or not to say, makes it a lot worse. Notwithstanding that the Crown will need to prove more than the fact that he told her to do that, even if that call did take place and is as described (that he tried to persuade her to lie), it's a hell of an indictment of his character, regardless of whether he is guilty of obstruction or not.

The point you seem to be trying to make reminds me very much of a very shitty RSM who would try to come up with any excuse to undermine the Chain of Command who wanted to put a WO/SNCO on remedial measures and instead just wanted to post them to the Infantry School.... those people in leadership ranks who essentially turn the "benefit of a doubt" into "the benefit of me putting my head in the sand" are the true root of the problems the CAF faces when it comes to human resource management / accountability.
 
Last edited:
Top