Spousal Complaint against a Mbr of the CAF

[Mediman14]

Given that the CAF is responsible to the tax payers in Canada, Does a Military Mbr spouse have the right to put a complaint against a Mbr of the CAF?
  In my 20yrs in the Military, I have never seen or heard this before. But then again, I am not pervy to this!

 

[ballz]

I think you'd have to be more specific... a complaint about what and to whom, for example?

 

[Mediman14]

Sorry, I was just speaking from a general Point of View! Ex, a false statement or an inconsiderate statement made a Mbr of the CAF, That offends a spouse of a military Mbr

 

[Lumber]

No. If called one of my subordinates one of the laziest, most inept, most incompetent sailors that I'd ever met, and his spouse didn't like it, she/he couldn't do squat.

I mean, nothing official; they could call MY boss and tell them I'm being mean.

 

[Blackadder1916]

A complaint?

Sure.  Anybody can complain about anything to anyone.  Now, whether military authorities have jurisdiction to take disciplinary or administrative action against the member, that's another question.  A personal experience was back a quarter century ago.  A dependant spouse made a complaint about one of the corporals at the hospital.  The incident was investigated, the HWO laid a charge and the member was brought before a delegated officer (a doctor who would later be Surg Gen, it was his first summary, probably the only one in his career), the spouse gave evidence and the accused was found guilty.  Easy peasy.

 

[Mediman14]

That makes sense!

  Thank you

 

[Blackadder1916]

Sorry, I was just speaking from a general Point of View! Ex, a false statement or an inconsiderate statement made a Mbr of the CAF, That offends a spouse of a military Mbr

First reaction is that this may fall within "harassment".  Yeah, there are a whole bunch of criteria to meet that threshold, but if the actions by the member were "workplace" related then that's the starting point.

 

[ModlrMike]

A knowingly false statement about another person could be considered slander, which would be a civil matter. Making an inconsiderate remark could be considered rude. I doubt either meet the threshold for disciplinary or administrative action, unless there's a direct service nexus.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

In my 20yrs in the Military, I have never seen or heard this before. But then again, I am not pervy "privy" to this!

There, fixed that for you.

 

[Blackadder1916]

There, fixed that for you.

How do you know that it needed fixing?  While an unexpected declaration,  there may a perfectly valid reason for him to stress that his interest in the situation is in no way connected to any perversions that he may have (not that he has any - or if he does, that there is anything wrong with that).

 

[Cadwr]

Point of interest - if the situation arises OUTCAN, then the rules regarding how the Chain of Command interacts with spouses (administratively and in matters of discipline) are drastically different. Dependants are generally subject to the CSD when accompanying a member OUTCAN.

 

[JesseWZ]

Point of interest - if the situation arises OUTCAN, then the rules regarding how the Chain of Command interacts with spouses (administratively and in matters of discipline) are drastically different. Dependants are generally subject to the CSD when accompanying a member OUTCAN.

Nope.

Civilians are subject to the CSD when attached to a unit or element OUTCAN. Hence why PSP members attached to Afghanistan missions were subject to the CSD. When a member is seconded to Global Affairs, and they travel with their dependants, they don't magically become subject to the CSD.

For reference:

NDA S 60 Sub (f)
"(f) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, who accompanies any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces that is on service or active service in any place;"

 

[211RadOp]

Nope.

Civilians are subject to the CSD when attached to a unit or element OUTCAN. Hence why PSP members attached to Afghanistan missions were subject to the CSD. When a member is seconded to Global Affairs, and they travel with their dependants, they don't magically become subject to the CSD.

For reference:

NDA S 60 Sub (f)
"(f) a person, not otherwise subject to the Code of Service Discipline, who accompanies any unit or other element of the Canadian Forces that is on service or active service in any place;"

"61. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 60, 62 and 65, but subject to any limitations prescribed by the Governor in Council, a person accompanies a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces that is on service or active service if the person

. c.is a dependant outside Canada of an officer or non-commissioned member serving beyond Canada with that unit or other element; or

 

[JesseWZ]

"61. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 60, 62 and 65, but subject to any limitations prescribed by the Governor in Council, a person accompanies a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces that is on service or active service if the person

. c.is a dependant outside Canada of an officer or non-commissioned member serving beyond Canada with that unit or other element; or

I'm aware of 61 sub 1. The inference I was refuting was that all dependants on all overseas postings are subject to the CSD.

 

[Cadwr]

I'm aware of 61 sub 1. The inference I was refuting was that all dependants on all overseas postings are subject to the CSD.

Thanks for clarifying.  I should've been more clear - when I said "generally," I meant to imply "not all."  I can see where I led you to a faulty inference.

Interestingly, the only case I was personally involved in did in fact involve spouses of MPs at an embassy.