• 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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,687
Points
890
The National Post has further details from Fortin's affidavit. And apparently the Government is seeking to have his lawsuit dismissed as he did not first avail himself of internal administrative options (ie a grievance).

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,752
Points
1,160
Action was taken far higher than the final authority of the CAF Grievance process (the CDS), so that ‘should’ be a reasonable dismissal of the Fed Govt’s motion.

That said, we know the Fed Govt will go as far as firing the Attorney General if the PM doesn’t get what he wants, so too early to count ‘Fed motion dismissal’ eggs before they hatch.

G2G
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
449
Points
930
Kind of hard to file a RoG when the person who wronged you is also the IA and FA. AFAIK, there is nothing in the manual about filing a grievance where the CDS is the respondent.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,038
Points
1,060
The National Post has further details from Fortin's affidavit. And apparently the Government is seeking to have his lawsuit dismissed as he did not first avail himself of internal administrative options (ie a grievance).


You'd think a 2 star would know about how all that stuff works...

Awkward Dj Pauly D GIF by Jersey Shore Family Vacation
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,752
Points
1,160
You'd think a 2 star would know about how all that stuff works...

Awkward Dj Pauly D GIF by Jersey Shore Family Vacation
Pretty sure both he and Thomas Conway, his counsel do. The trial balloons being floated from the shadows about the Fed Govt considering seeking to dismiss Fortin’s case smell of more of the same as what led to his removal from his PHAC secondment.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,526
Points
890
It’s a principle in administrative law that a request for judicial review should follow the exhaustion of internal redress mechanisms first. This will likely hinge on a successful argument that the issue was not redressible internally to CAF. That’s probably a very reasonable claim in this case.

That said, his counsel will of course then need to succesfully argue that he was in fact denied procedural fairness. I’m not able to assess that.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,018
Points
1,060
I posted my research about 10 hours ago. I don't know what happened but the posting is gone. I will try again but I will have to start again.
I share your pain. When I spend days researching groundbreaking information to present I always forget to turn on auto-save and never save stuff to folders.

Unless you saved it on your computer and that was mysteriously deleted too. Careful.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,526
Points
890
formerdndemployee said:
I posted my research about 10 hours ago. I don't know what happened but the posting is gone. I will try again but I will have to start again. I think I am being blocked by a guy named Bruce Monkhouse. He said I have to buy some of his crap to continue.

So, no, that's not what happened. Bruce is one of the admins of the page. You were not told you need to 'buy something' to continue.

I read your post. It was certainly interesting, and entirely possible that it was true. But, you're a completely anonymous person claiming to have inside information, and you posted a great amount of pretty salacious details, specifically naming a person who has been involved in a lot of various administrative and procedural stuff. None of us have any ability to assess your credibility, and the things you posted would definitely open the owners of the site to potential allegations of defamation from two named parties. It appears that you joined this site entirely with the purpose of airing this very dirty laundry.

I'm not an admin of this page. Used to be a while ago though- and had I still been, I would have removed the post and sent you a private message with concerns. I suspect that is what has happened here from someone - Bruce - who still is one of the people running the page. He and the rest of the team generally do a pretty good job keeping this page out of the muck. If you have further concerns, they're probably best addressed to him. What you won't succeed in doing is rallying many people to your cause here. None of us have a damned clue who you are, and your motive in joining the page is as obvious as it is self-interested.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,251
Points
910
Action was taken far higher than the final authority of the CAF Grievance process (the CDS), so that ‘should’ be a reasonable dismissal of the Fed Govt’s motion.

That said, we know the Fed Govt will go as far as firing the Attorney General I’d the PM doesn’t get what he wants, so too early to count ‘Fed motion dismissal’ eggs before they hatch.

G2G
FWIW I smell a rat - I may have said this before but someone has it in for MGen Fortin, sensed an opportunity and struck while the iron was hot.

This isn't the first time a GOFO has been sent up the creek with no paddle. I have suspicions.... 😈
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
It’s a principle in administrative law that a request for judicial review should follow the exhaustion of internal redress mechanisms first. This will likely hinge on a successful argument that the issue was not redressible internally to CAF. That’s probably a very reasonable claim in this case.

That said, his counsel will of course then need to succesfully argue that he was in fact denied procedural fairness. I’m not able to assess that.
According to the posted article and others, he was relieved of his duties by the CDS at the joint direction of the MND, Health Minister and PMO, thereby making the MND the de-facto FA in any grievance process. In that the MND cannot be an FA as he is not part of the CAF, this is likely not redressable, unless the relief was done by the CDS IAW QR&O 19.75. However, 19.75 (6) requires that the authority considering the relief to inform the member beforehand of the circumstances leading to the relief. Was this done? I don't know, but it appears MGen Fortin was aware several months beforehand that he was being investigated.

WRT procedural fairness, I see two interests in play. First, as the allegations against him are unproven he is (should be) innocent until proven guilty. Second, if he was denied the prior information required by 19.75 (6), that could well be redressable.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
449
Points
930
Second, if he was denied the prior information required by 19.75 (6), that could well be redressable.

The challenge though is because the CDS is responsible for supplying the info, and the CDS is also at the top of the food chain WRT IA for grievances, there is no mechanism available through which he can complain.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
The challenge though is because the CDS is responsible for supplying the info, and the CDS is also at the top of the food chain WRT IA for grievances, there is no mechanism available through which he can complain.
Was he, though? At the time, PHAC was MGen Fortin's "employing unit". Would not his PHAC superiors be responsible for that "hey, we're going to relieve you of your duties because we've been told to" talk?
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
449
Points
930
QR&O 19.75 (2) For the purpose of this article, the Chief of the Defence Staff and an officer commanding a command are the authorities who may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty.

I suggest PHAC does not qualify as an officer commanding a command, therefore the decision and responsibility lies with the CDS.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
558
Points
910
I suggest PHAC does not qualify as an officer commanding a command, therefore the decision and responsibility lies with the CDS.
True, which is why the A/CDS relieved him (if it was in fact done under QR&O 19.75). However, the information required to be delivered IAW 19.75 (6) could have been delivered by his PHAC superior at the request of the A/CDS. What we don't know, and the question is , was the information delivered at all? Or was he blindsided?
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
449
Points
930
Another thought experiment:

Does an A/CDS require delegated powers in the same manner as other commanders do?
 
Top