• 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

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
358
Points
880
They are just really out in the open about the fact that retired Col and Generals have power. I have seen the Col Commandant shut down a panel of Cols and Gen officers with the threat of a few phone calls to Ottawa. This happens in every O Mess and Wardroom of every base but the Combat Arms just elect a person to do that and then put him to work.
What a sad statement.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,012
Points
1,060
They are just really out in the open about the fact that retired Col and Generals have power. I have seen the Col Commandant shut down a panel of Cols and Gen officers with the threat of a few phone calls to Ottawa. This happens in every O Mess and Wardroom of every base but the Combat Arms just elect a person to do that and then put him to work.

To be fair, which is unlike me, Regimental Councils do alot of good work looking 'inwards' at the regimental level to see who is doing well, who might need some help, and other important HR type stuff that the 'Big CAF' just doesn't handle, or care much about.

And as I've only seen them in action as an observer, and never been part of one, that's about where my knowledge level stops.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
710
Career management is done by the various career managers in Ottawa, guided by the COs of units/schools. Each Regimental Senate might develop a wish list of who should get moved where and promoted/developed, but they are not the ones doing the posting/promoting. That is the Career shop in Ottawa- just like everyone else.

In the infantry, the infantry career managers do what they're told by the regiments. The infantry career manager will know which positions need to be filled and in what priority from the corps' perspective, many of which are already considered to be a certain regiments responsibility to fill (largely based on geography), and the regiments will decide who is filling those positions and the career manager cuts the posting message accordingly. Then there's a bunch of positions that can be swapped as required (i.e. Royals have someone who has a compelling reason for a posting to a location normally have a Patricia filling it, the regiments will just agree to have it filled by a royal, the Patricia's might need a similar swap somewhere else, etc.). They're usually competing to get "their guy" into certain high-profile jobs for career progression reasons, and competing with other trades on that front as well, etc. You don't become the Army G3 without your regiment fighting to get you there, for example.

They're definitely involved in buttons, bows, etc. but their biggest role day-to-day to your average infanteer is career management.

Jesus, a 286 page manual for a single regiment ?

There are Regimental Constitutions and Bylaws ?

The RCR's Regimental Standing Orders are 595 pages and covers a lot of the questions you are asking... 2017_Regimental-Standing_Orders

Happy reading.
 
Last edited:

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
450
Points
980
No one convicted of the crimes Hamilton was convicted of should be given a character reference, not because they legally shouldnt but because I'd like to think any serving member would see the moral pitfalls in authoring such a letter.

Should MGen Dawe not have testified on his behalf during the trial, had he been so called?

If you disagree with the sentencing process and its conventions, do you similarly disagree with the trial process and its conventions?

If we withhold statements in favour of a convicted person, we would also have to withhold statements against him or her. Should that happen, nobody would know about the lengthy string of similar crimes perpetrated by the offender, including the last one that he committed while out on bail for the preceding one, which he committed while out on bail for the one before that.

Like it or not, there are both trial and sentencing processes for good and valid reason.

The trial phase exists to examine the facts surround the crime, and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The sentencing phase exists to determine the most appropriate sentence for that particular crime. If the sentence is considered to be either too light or too heavy compared to similar verdicts, either the crown or the defence can appeal.

An accused person has a right to a fair trial, no matter what his or her crimes might be.

"No one accused of the crimes Bloggins was accused of should be given a lawyer, not because he shouldn't but because I'd like to think that any decent lawyer would see the moral pitfalls in defending him".

I embrace this. And I see it as a way to shed the bad people we shouldnt want in our ranks.

And that can still be done after a fair and proper conviction and sentencing.

We need to concentrate on victim support and investigation of all allegations.

That does not exclude the need to do other things rightly and properly as well, nor prevent them from being done.

From what we have seen in the press, some of those other things were not done as well as they could have been, in some opinions, but the reporting has also favoured the victims' sides so a complete and accurate picture cannot be presumed from what we know.

There have been court outcomes, in the past, with which I very much disagreed. Reading judges' decisions, however, puts a much different light on things, and often changes my opinions. I still don't like the outcomes, but I know why the decisions were made, can understand the thinking behind them, and can no longer simply claim that "the judge was out to lunch".

The judge's instruction to the jury in the Colton Bouchie case is well worth reading for a good insight. It was still available on the National Post website several months ago. His family were most unhappy with the verdict, and also received more sympathy in the press. That case was also discussed in here, if I remember correctly.

There were no winners in that one, either.

I'd like to see this judge's decision.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
524
Points
940
Are you alleging that Eyre wrote a letter, or are you speculating? I am trying, but failing, to understand what you are saying.
I am not alleging, just speculating if he was involved he may of back him self into a corner. We need more information
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
I am not alleging, just speculating if he was involved he may of back him self into a corner. We need more information
If he had been involved in the sexual assault itself, he may also have backed himself into a corner. We need more information.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
358
Points
880
Should MGen Dawe not have testified on his behalf during the trial, had he been so called?

If you disagree with the sentencing process and its conventions, do you similarly disagree with the trial process and its conventions?

If we withhold statements in favour of a convicted person, we would also have to withhold statements against him or her. Should that happen, nobody would know about the lengthy string of similar crimes perpetrated by the offender, including the last one that he committed while out on bail for the preceding one, which he committed while out on bail for the one before that.

Like it or not, there are both trial and sentencing processes for good and valid reason.

The trial phase exists to examine the facts surround the crime, and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The sentencing phase exists to determine the most appropriate sentence for that particular crime. If the sentence is considered to be either too light or too heavy compared to similar verdicts, either the crown or the defence can appeal.

An accused person has a right to a fair trial, no matter what his or her crimes might be.

"No one accused of the crimes Bloggins was accused of should be given a lawyer, not because he shouldn't but because I'd like to think that any decent lawyer would see the moral pitfalls in defending him".



And that can still be done after a fair and proper conviction and sentencing.



That does not exclude the need to do other things rightly and properly as well, nor prevent them from being done.

From what we have seen in the press, some of those other things were not done as well as they could have been, in some opinions, but the reporting has also favoured the victims' sides so a complete and accurate picture cannot be presumed from what we know.

There have been court outcomes, in the past, with which I very much disagreed. Reading judges' decisions, however, puts a much different light on things, and often changes my opinions. I still don't like the outcomes, but I know why the decisions were made, can understand the thinking behind them, and can no longer simply claim that "the judge was out to lunch".

The judge's instruction to the jury in the Colton Bouchie case is well worth reading for a good insight. It was still available on the National Post website several months ago. His family were most unhappy with the verdict, and also received more sympathy in the press. That case was also discussed in here, if I remember correctly.

There were no winners in that one, either.

I'd like to see this judge's decision.

Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things. If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return. That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".

The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing. As he should have. What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing. I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one. #tryandmakeme
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
450
Points
980
Both yes and no. S 130 doesn't list any laws but in fact incorporates all Federal laws which have a punishment provision over and above the CCC. Narcotics falls into that. Also don't forget s 132 of the NDA which allows laying a charge under any foreign law where the offence takes place. This used to be a standard for drunk driving in Germany. The intent of this section is to allow Canada to take jurisdiction over offences where the CSD wouldn't apply. In large part this is to meet SOFA requirements and facilitates keeping Canadian soldiers out of foreign courts and jails.

🍻

A Vandoo Sergeant's wife spent two or three weeks in the Guardhouse in Lahr, after a standard hatless dance, while I was there - with the standard issue of boots to spitshine, Kiwi polish tin, old stainless steel water bottle, mess tins, and steel garbage can (all painted black) to buff to a high shine with rag and Brasso.

She had left the Warrant Officers' and Sergeants' Mess late one Friday night while her husband was in the field, hammered out of her mind, somehow managed to drive onto the ramp in front of 5 AMU, smacked into the nose wheel of a Herc, got out of her car, and made it about two paces. The MPs found her soon afterwards, face down.

She was convinced that she was in her own parking spot at her Q or apartment.

On the last day of her sentence, like any other miscreant, she was handed a can of spray paint to prepare the metal items for the next guest.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
450
Points
980
Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things. If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return. That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".

The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing. As he should have. What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing. I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one. #tryandmakeme

Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.

How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who knew the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him?

That is entirely relevant to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an appropriate sentence.

Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
524
Points
940
If he had been involved in the sexual assault itself, he may also have backed himself into a corner. We need more information.
The article posted and others suggest we was involved in the letter writing from PPCLI. IF he was he couldn't ethically not back Dawes without bring hypocritical. That is all I am saying
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
710
The article posted and others suggest we was involved in the letter writing from PPCLI. IF he was he couldn't ethically not back Dawes without bring hypocritical. That is all I am saying

The article doesn't suggest that. The article states that he was the Senior Serving Patricia at the time when it was written, doesn't explain anything about what that means, and leaves the reader to draw that conclusion based on the fact that they have no idea what any of that means (just look at the questions here about how regiments work).

Being the Senior Serving person in a Regiment is not like being in a Command position.... you're the senior serving person by virtue of your rank and time-in. Some are more involved than others, but you don't go to the Senior Serving person for direction all the time. For example, Vance was the Senior Serving member for The RCR (obviously, cause no one outranked him), and guess what, as CDS he was too busy so the next senior guy took up those "duties" if you can even call it that. The Patricia's RHQ is in Edmonton, I'm not sure what position he was in but he was in some sort of GOFO / Ottawa-based position, up to his neck in his own files. Very unlikely that LCol McGregor reached out to the most senior member of his regiment, a 2 or 3-star at the time, to talk to him about the letter he was composing for one guy's court case (especially cause those degenerate Patricia's have a truckload of guys in court at any given time).

I suspect he would have reached out to Col Adair who was the Colonel of the Regiment at the time, and actually has an active part in day-to-day activities of the regiment. I dunno how Adair is escaping heat and light on this one... I guess he's benefitting from not being as juicy a target as a 2 and 3-star GOFO, as well as no one understanding how regiments work.

The CDS's office stated LGen Eyre had no knowledge of the letter, and I believe him on that one... particularly with how haphazardly this all seems to have been executed.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,287
Points
910
Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things. If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return. That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".

The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing. As he should have. What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing. I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one. #tryandmakeme
No one can force you or anybody else to write a character reference. If you do not think one is warranted- don’t write it. Simple.

That is alot different than saying character references, as a concept, should not exist in crimes that you personally (and for very good reason, if I can extend my personal sympathy for what you suffered during your childhood) find abhorent.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
358
Points
880
Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.

How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who knew the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him?

That is entirely relevant to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an appropriate sentence.

Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.
Yup they sure are. And I am free to think anyone who would provide a statement in a positive light for an offender who committed crimes as is this subject is abhorrent.

Because he used his rank, position and organizational letter head to try to and paint the convict in a positive light and influence the sentencing in the convicts favor.

I wont argue that. But I will say sometimes silence is louder than speech.

I am wholly dedicated to my subordinates. But they forfeit my dedication if they are found guilty of rape/attempted rape and to have assaulted that persons partner, such is the subject matter at hand.

There is a scale of offences, our own laws say so. Some more grievous than others. Minor transgressions can be dealt with through good leadership, positive examples and corrective measure at the unit level. Some require jail time. Want my support ? Don't rape people, seems fair and reasonable.

No one can force you or anybody else to write a character reference. If you do not think one is warranted- don’t write it. Simple.

That is alot different than saying character references, as a concept, should not exist in crimes that you personally (and for very good reason, if I can extend my personal sympathy for what you suffered during your childhood) find abhorent.
I don't think I said they shouldn't exist, I think I said this one shouldn't have been written. If I wasn't clear I apologize the aforementioned is my intent.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,237
Points
910
The article doesn't suggest that. The article states that he was the Senior Serving Patricia at the time when it was written, doesn't explain anything about what that
I suspect he would have reached out to Col Adair who was the Colonel of the Regiment at the time, and actually has an active part in day-to-day activities of the regiment. I dunno how Adair is escaping heat and light on this one... I guess he's benefitting from not being as juicy a target as a 2 and 3-star GOFO, as well as no one understanding how regiments work.
FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy.

IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
65
Points
380
FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy.

IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.
https://ppcli.com/wp-content/uploads/Complete-Regimental-Manual-01-Aug-19.pdf

After a quick read of the link provided by Blackadder1916, it appears the President of the Guard must be a General Officer, and is typically the Senior Serving Patricia.

In addition to Colonel-in-Chief, and Colonel of the Regiment, there is also a Regimental Colonel who is the "senior career management planner" and is normally "a Colonel employed in the Ottawa area."

Logically, Colonel Adair was filling the latter role, since C-in-C and CoR appointments aren't filled by currently serving officers.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
710
FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy.

IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.

Edit: COTR vs Regimental Colonel. Mick beat me to it.

He was at the time of this letter though, correct? ... and my mistake, it's not COTR we're talking about, it's Regimental Colonel... I always mixed those two up. Or do Patricia's not use the term Regimental Colonel? I'm not familiar with "Regimental Guard," would that be the same as Regimental Senate in The RCR... wow, this last para shows how confusing the tribal stuff gets.

In any case, I should state, I know very little of the mafia stuff, and definitely less about the Patricias. Maybe Eyre was informed, maybe not, I dunno. But there's enough separation between Senior Serving that I believe him when his office states he had no knowledge of it. Although I would guess Maj Hamilton's case was watched more closely by the Regiment than many others would be.
 
Last edited:

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
775
Points
1,060
Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel. Figurehead. Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues. This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc. Some venues involve former members. If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans. Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil. A secondary duty for a busy General. Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties. Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things. Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere. The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
358
Points
880
Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel. Figurehead. Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues. This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc. Some venues involve former members. If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans. Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil. A secondary duty for a busy General. Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties. Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things. Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere. The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.
Thanks I appreciate the in-depth info.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
775
Points
1,060
Note that when it comes to career management in a Regular Force Infantry Regiment, we are talking about hundreds of Captains, Majors, and Lieutenant-Colonels, so the Regimental Colonel steers what is actually a larger, collective process. We are not talking about one guy sitting in a smoke-filled room by himself.
 
Top