- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 330
The military will not take administrative action against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin after his commander concluded he does not believe Fortin committed sexual assault on campus when he was a cadet more than 30 years ago.
And rightly so. IMO this was a set up by someone who had something to gain.
The military will not take administrative action against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin after his commander concluded he does not believe Fortin committed sexual assault on campus when he was a cadet more than 30 years ago.
Now let's see if he gets an actual job or gets pushed into retirement anyway.
The military will not take administrative action against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin after his commander concluded he does not believe Fortin committed sexual assault on campus when he was a cadet more than 30 years ago.
As he says, this is not over.
question is does this go like Admiral Norman? or does he fight in court and drag the light over to the shadows? I hope the later as something smells fishy here to meI am genuinely looking forward to the next chapter in this, as it appears he will be the author…
This private prosecution is a new thing to me.
I did note this part of the article:
“Her attempts to reopen the case through the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC), a quasi-judicial civilian oversight body, and the Federal Court failed.”
This part baffles me some. The federal court refused to delve into this, but now a provincial court is? Or am I getting this wrong.
I’m drawing inferences here, but Federal Court would not have played any prosecutorial role in this. I suspect she complained to the MPCC, they didn’t grant her the remedy sought, and she then sought judicial review in federal court- but that proceeding would not have had the ability to order the commencement of a criminal prosecution.This private prosecution is a new thing to me.
I did note this part of the article:
“Her attempts to reopen the case through the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC), a quasi-judicial civilian oversight body, and the Federal Court failed.”
This part baffles me some. The federal court refused to delve into this, but now a provincial court is? Or am I getting this wrong.
I disagree. The role of the JP would be to determine, based on the information placed before them, that a prima facie criminal offence is made out; that admissible and probative evidence exists to establish the elements of the offence. Anybody can sit down with a JP and present their argument. As mentioned, being successful is rare - having it progress to trial is even rarer. Whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction is a decision for the Crown. Since prosecutors in Canada don't have their own investigators, I suspect this matter will be turned over to the police for re-investigation.That's because each court was dealing with different matters.
The Federal Court was carrying a judicial review of the MPCC decision. The "test" the court was applying was merely to decide if the MPCC's decision was reached without breaching any of the rules of procedural fairness and was a reasonable decision - not necessarily the correct decision.
The Provincial court was hearing a motion to bring a private prosecution. The "test" it administered was wether the petitioner brought sufficient evidence that a case existed that had a reasonable chance of success before a criminal court and therefore should be authorized to proceed to trial. The Federal court never looked into that, otherwise there would also have been an issue of judicial difference to deal with at the provincial level before authorizing the prosecution.
Why hasn't she been identified? No picture of her either in the linked article. Is she being treated as a victim in this consensual affair?Now that a fairly well-regarded politician is in the cross-hairs, with the threat of a less popular politician jumping in to take his place, superior/subordinate relationships have ceased to be prima facie forbidden and have become "complex issues" worthy of debate.
Why hasn't she been identified? No picture of her either in the linked article.
Why should she be identified?
Maybe because she's not the one blabbing about the relationship?? Also, she wasn't the mayor. I'm not sure what "free ride" she's getting out of this.Who decides which party in a consensual situationship gets the privilege's of anonymity?
Clearly Tory is the news story because of his status, does the other party just get a free ride?
Who decides which party in a consensual situationship gets the privilege's of anonymity?
Clearly Tory is the news story because of his status, does the other party just get a free ride?