- Reaction score
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).
In an affidavit, Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin wrote his reputation 'has been irreparably tarnished by the Decision to announce publicly an investigation into my…nationalpost.com
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.You'd think a 2 star would know about how all that stuff works...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Second, if he was denied the prior information required by 19.75 (6), that could well be redressable.
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?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.
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.
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?I suggest PHAC does not qualify as an officer commanding a command, therefore the decision and responsibility lies with the CDS.