• 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

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,460
Points
910
Thank you Gunnar.

For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
65
Points
380
I have never indicated I think he's guilty or not guilty (on the balance of probabilities). I've advocated for transparency. Do an admin review, and make it public. That's all I ask.

I don't even know what he's accused of, let alone what any of the evidence looks like. I cannot know, and therefore I can't have an informed opinion on whether he should or should not be fired. And that's not fair to me, or anyone on this thread, or any Canadian citizen... we live in a free and democratic country (apparently), we should be able to judge the government and the military accordingly.
I fully agree that more transparency is needed - and I acknowledge that you haven't speculated on the Admiral's innocence or guilt (I didn't mean to imply that you had) ... but others have.

My original question up-thread re balance of probabilities up-thread was in response to this:

How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?

As you and others indicate, we just don't know the details.

Without transparency, it's equally difficult to justify removal or reinstatement.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Well said! The CAF needs to get better at saying get lost to people who don't follow our ethos and standards, not up the standard of judgment to beyond a reasonable doubt.

I participated in Madam Arbour's ongoing review. One of the things I suggested was that the "bar" for kicking people out needs to get reset to a more appropriate standard. I assume it's because the military was always the place where society sent it's misfits, and part of the military's job was to discipline them and turn them into useful humans. So it seems we've got a culture where you've gotta commit numerous criminal acts to get kicked out. People can't even be arsed to try to hold people accountable because the CAF as an institution doesn't allow us to when we try.

One suggestion was the new standard be set, and that the Chain of Command should be able to appeal shitty DMCA decisions to the new L1 for Culture Change. That way the Culture Change L1 can help reset the bar, because the bar needs to be deliberately reset by the top.

Another suggestion is we need a far clearer policy for remedial measures / administrative actions. We need extensive examples of what constitutes an IC/RW/C&P, and done by rank (don't forget to include SNCOs and senior officers..................). You know... professional human resource policies.

And of course I advocated for amendments to the Privacy Act and the establishment of a transparent system for performance/conduct issues, such as we've been discussing on this thread.

If you kicked out the poor performers I would bet most of the harassment/sexual misconduct issues go away.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
I participated in Madam Arbour's ongoing review. One of the things I suggested was that the "bar" for kicking people out needs to get reset to a more appropriate standard. I assume it's because the military was always the place where society sent it's misfits, and part of the military's job was to discipline them and turn them into useful humans. So it seems we've got a culture where you've gotta commit numerous criminal acts to get kicked out. People can't even be arsed to try to hold people accountable because the CAF as an institution doesn't allow us to when we try.
I don't think that is true, we have at the tactical end kidded ourselves that is the case because really getting rid of people means work. I have done it for a number of people. I agree the bar is a bit high but it is doable.
One suggestion was the new standard be set, and that the Chain of Command should be able to appeal shitty DMCA decisions to the new L1 for Culture Change. That way the Culture Change L1 can help reset the bar, because the bar needs to be deliberately reset by the top.
My experience is that DMCA isn't so much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what the progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.

On top of that DMCA only holds so much weight if a CO says they want to retain a member, then low and behold they are more than likely retained. Goes back to that "reforming misfits thing" you mentioned! I have had a few great conversations with the DMCA 2 analysts and they have some great stories of cases that were slam dunk releases and in the end a unit said "nah brah we will keep them"! I had one where we did the release 5 years after a unit CO said member was salvageable (and then spent the next 5 years proving they weren't).

There is also a good argument for the DMCA 2 functions to be pushed to the L2/3 level however that comes with some risk, something we are not good at taking
Another suggestion is we need a far clearer policy for remedial measures / administrative actions. We need extensive examples of what constitutes an IC/RW/C&P, and done by rank (don't forget to include SNCOs and senior officers..................). You know... professional human resource policies.

And of course I advocated for amendments to the Privacy Act and the establishment of a transparent system for performance/conduct issues, such as we've been discussing on this thread.
Agreed, our current admin policies you need to mash together to make a complete coherent understanding, aligning them as one is a great first start
 
Last edited:

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
I don't think that is true, we have at the tactical end kidded ourselves that is the case because really getting rid of people means work. I have done it for a number of people. I agree the bar is a bit high but it is doable.

My experience is that DMCA isn't s much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.

On top of that DMCA only holds so much weight if a CO says they want to retain a member, then low and behold they are more than likely retained. Goes back to that "reforming misfits thing" you mentioned! I have had a few great conversations with the DMCA 2 analysts and they have some great stories of cases that were slam dunk releases and in the end a unit said nah brah we will keep them!

There is also a good argument for the DMCA 2 functions to be pushed to the L2/3 level however that comes with some risk, something we are not good at taking

Agreed, our current admin policies you need to mash together to make a complete coherent understanding, aligning them as one is a great first start
I have also seen the opposite- slam dunk cases where a misfit desperately needed to be separated from the CAF. But, apparently, a Captain staff officer can over rule a LCol CO and a Col WComd…

And no, the paperwork was not shoddy.

In fairness, most of these were training system issues and not (generally) DMCA decisions, but I did see one refusal to release recently that was…breathtaking.

The death knell for the CAF was a recent decision to retain everybody, no matter how bad their conduct.

Guess what- the good people won’t stay in a system where we cannot get rid of drug dealers, criminals or the patently incompetent.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
I have also seen the opposite- slam dunk cases where a misfit desperately needed to be separated from the CAF. But, apparently, a Captain staff officer can over rule a LCol CO and a Col WComd…

And no, the paperwork was not shoddy.

In fairness, most of these were training system issues and not (generally) DMCA decisions, but I did see one refusal to release recently that was…breathtaking.

The death knell for the CAF was a recent decision to retain everybody, no matter how bad their conduct.

Guess what- the good people won’t stay in a system where we cannot get rid of drug dealers, criminals or the patently incompetent.
That is interesting and not in a good way. The training side of releases is much more frustrating IMHO as the staff(s) are not as good as what one finds at DMCA 2.

I am certainly not defending DMCA 2 as they have made some silly decisions, funny enough the more senior the person the sillier the decision. I just find that most problems originate with the unit unwilling to do the work (albeit more work than what should be needed)
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,593
Points
910
That is interesting and not in a good way. The training side of releases is much more frustrating IMHO as the staff(s) are not as good as what one finds at DMCA 2.

I am certainly not defending DMCA 2 as they have made some silly decisions, funny enough the more senior the person the sillier the decision. I just find that most problems originate with the unit unwilling to do the work (albeit more work than what should be needed)
Look, analysts are humans and have good days and bad days. I assume this one recent decision was a bad day.…
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJP

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
87
Points
430
so... Fortin supposedly exposed himself in the quarters at RMC 30+ years ago according to one person and he gets removed. Trudeau is accused, admits to the encounter and apologizes that the woman has a different recollection of events than he does so the whole thing goes away. hmmmmm.

And appears in blackface more times than he can remember, but it's something we can learn from, as if it's somehow our fault he wears blackface.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,162
Points
1,010
If you kicked out the poor performers I would bet most of the harassment/sexual misconduct issues go away.

Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,162
Points
1,010
Mass psychosis
QUOTE="OldSolduer, post: 1677179, member: 28243"]
Thank you Gunnar.

For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.
[/QUOTE]
I denounce the guy who keeps walking his dog by my house and his dog keeps pissing on my lawn. (P.S. I may have also yelled at him)
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.

Like I said, "most." While GOFOs are in the news due to their ranks, they're an an extremely small percentage of the CAF's demographic. If GOFOs were the only people causing the problems, we wouldn't actually have that many occurrences, there just isn't enough of them.

I have no data to back it up (hence why I said I'd bet on it), but my observation is that most of the people making other people's lives miserable are also incompetent. Not a surprise if you really think it through. Someone who is incompetent lacks logic, reasoning, problem solving skills, good judgement, etc. Those things affect your ability to navigate all problems including ones of a moral or ethical nature.

It shouldn't be a surprise that when we promote someone who is in over there head as a Corporal or Captain to SNCO or senior officer, that when faced with the even more difficult problems that are inherent to more leadership responsibilities (such as moral or ethical), they end up making the wrong decision more often than someone who is competent.

So I'm not arguing that it's a question of poor performance, I'm arguing I think poor performance and toxicity are correlated. The ones who are hyper competent and toxic won't be weeded out by holding them to account for job performance but I believe they are a minority of the problem. That's where the 360 degree leadership assessments and some other methods are vital.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
780
Points
910
That is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Balance of probabilities is a well developed methodology of determining the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. As we have hashed out a few times in this thread there is no need for a beyond a reasonable doubt outside of the courtroom despite what some people think

"more likely than not" is, in effect, "50/50", whether the latter is "simplistic" and the former is (somehow?) "not simplistic".

I just went through a round of reading about how some people in the business (judges and lawyers) are thinking "proof beyond reasonable doubt" needs rework (less "simplistic", I suppose), so "balance of probabilities is a well developed methodology" is a phrase that landed just a bit too late to be more than a punch line.

At the core is the assumption that, if the punishment/harm is below some threshold of severity, it's OK to have a substantial measure of doubt or a weak proof. Needs revisiting. I suppose the reason it passes muster for now is that the frequency of decisions at the 50/50 mark are low.

We can't undo harm to a victim (we can compensate/mitigate, somewhat). We also can't undo harm to an innocent. What we can do is wait until we satisfy greater weights of evidence.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
582
Points
1,060
mad gran torino GIF
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
At the core is the assumption that, if the punishment/harm is below some threshold of severity, it's OK to have a substantial measure of doubt or a weak proof. Needs revisiting. I suppose the reason it passes muster for now is that the frequency of decisions at the 50/50 mark are low.

I don't agree that that is the core of the assumption, however, it is also absolutely ridiculous to suggest a piece of paper like an initial counselling that says "your performance is not up to standard" is punitive and should require the same standard of proof as a murder case. It's only punitive to people who are emotionally fragile and need to grow up.

If I own a business, and pay someone for their labour, I should absolutely be able to make the judgement on whether or not I want to continue that relationship. I shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy is defrauding my business, putting me in a place where I have to pay him a huge severance to get rid of him or potentially face legal action, just to cut ties with him. If I can establish that he is probably defrauding me, that's enough. At the core of this is freedom of association. It would violate my right to associate with whomever if I'm now going to be forced into continuing a relationship that I don't want with this person.

I should not be forced by law to let this employee ruin me, my livelihood, and my business, when all I want to do is cut ties with him. Again, it's not a punishment, I'm not "doing harm" to the guy, you're painting it that way and it's just not the case. There is nothing punitive about my choice to no longer want an employer/employee relationship with this person. Sure, it may have secondary consequences for the person, but I'm not punishing them, that's just how freedom of association works and thank god for that.

All of that is applicable whether it's a sole proprietor, corporation, or the Crown.

You were the one arguing how we don't need they additional measures forced upon COs who haven't demonstrated that they've failed to use the administrative actions / discipline appropriately. Now you're talking about removing their ability to actually use their judgement to determine what most likely occurred and dealing with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJP

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,162
Points
1,010
Sigh, but I live in Ottawa, and as satisfying as that approach would be, and likely effective, the thought of being in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center and having my kids visit means that my only option is yelling.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,060
Like I said, "most." While GOFOs are in the news due to their ranks, they're an an extremely small percentage of the CAF's demographic. If GOFOs were the only people causing the problems, we wouldn't actually have that many occurrences, there just isn't enough of them.

I have no data to back it up (hence why I said I'd bet on it), but my observation is that most of the people making other people's lives miserable are also incompetent. Not a surprise if you really think it through. Someone who is incompetent lacks logic, reasoning, problem solving skills, good judgement, etc. Those things affect your ability to navigate all problems including ones of a moral or ethical nature.

It shouldn't be a surprise that when we promote someone who is in over there head as a Corporal or Captain to SNCO or senior officer, that when faced with the even more difficult problems that are inherent to more leadership responsibilities (such as moral or ethical), they end up making the wrong decision more often than someone who is competent.

So I'm not arguing that it's a question of poor performance, I'm arguing I think poor performance and toxicity are correlated. The ones who are hyper competent and toxic won't be weeded out by holding them to account for job performance but I believe they are a minority of the problem. That's where the 360 degree leadership assessments and some other methods are vital.

My informal and data poor estimate is that there are alot of poor performers who are not necessarily ethically bankrupt.

On the other hand, many high performers seem to be sociopaths.

But I'm prone to making snap judgments:

1628981552583.png
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
780
Points
910
If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees. There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs. People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.

Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business. Politicians and government employees fit that description. Taxpayers have an arguable claim to being able to seek and retain employment in anything publicly owned. Professional institutions are a bit different, not being directly an employer but having the power of denying someone a line of employment entirely. People in those institutions have no right of association they may exercise against anyone they please. So there have to be rules to prevent people who don't bear costs from imposing costs on others inappropriately.

You were the one arguing how we don't need they additional measures forced upon COs who haven't demonstrated that they've failed to use the administrative actions / discipline appropriately.

Yes.

Now you're talking about removing their ability to actually use their judgement to determine what most likely occurred and dealing with it.

No. My point is that the threshold of proof should be higher (the "appropriately" condition) for exercising one side of that judgement. I don't care if it's hard. I don't care if the people who want to see some punishment don't get to see as much punishment.

Suppose we had a quantitative measure of proof (likelihood of guilt, as a percentage) and could measure all disputes with it. I suspect there are trivial numbers of vexatious or ill-founded complaints that people bring to bear, and few where the evidence is really weak. I guess that plotting many cases would produce a lopsided distribution, leaning strongly towards 100% with a rapid drop off before 50% and a very narrow tail from there down to 0%. If the rapid drop off occurred, say, at 75%, then the burden of proof could be raised from balance of probability to 70/30 (proof/disproof) without materially benefiting most actually guilty persons. But it would provide a lot more protection for not actually guilty persons. It should also reduce false or contrived disputes, allowing more resources to be directed to disputes with substance (or more resources to not be expended at all).
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
283
Points
910
What is that, 50/50? Lot of room for error.

There's actually a bit of misconception in the thread of "standard of proof" in CAF Admin Law.

From A-LG-007-000/AF-010, Ch 2, Sect 4 Procedural Fairness in the CF:

Standard of proof for decision makers

52. Those CF personnel who have completed the Presiding Officer Certification Training (POCT) course have been exposed to the concept of applying a ‘standard of proof’ when making a decision with significant consequences to the subject of the decision. As emphasized in that course, an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal or service offence unless the presiding officer is convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the offence. In civil cases, the standard is somewhat lower (i.e., the decision-maker(s) must be satisfied on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that an incident occurred). An equivalent phrase that is used is ‘based on the preponderance of evidence.’ Generally, this is the standard that is to be applied in most administrative decisions.

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.

Also, Ch 14 also states "In general, as the potential consequences of an administrative action become more severe, the member’s entitlement to procedural fairness increases". The cases with the GOFO rank mbr's in the news recently would all fall into the 'severe' category IMO.
 
Top