Class A service and AWOL

[dapaterson]

Regulations and orders and policies are written not by the legislature but by civil servants who themselves are interpreting the statute within the scope that the legislature allows them to.

Except for QR&Os it's not always that clear.  QR&Os can be under the authority of the CDS, the Minister, the Treasury Board, or the Governor in Council; in the latter two instances, at least, it's arguable that a court would give greater weight to such regulations due to their source.


QR&Os are odd ducks in many respects (no pre-publication, for one); far too many in the CAF don't understand them, their role, their origin, or the significant latitude granted by the legislature to the CAF in controlling many aspects of its own destiny.  (Or for real fun, try to explain to folks the difference between legislation, regulation, policy & process)

 

[FJAG]

Except for QR&Os it's not always that clear.  QR&Os can be under the authority of the CDS, the Minister, the Treasury Board, or the Governor in Council; in the latter two instances, at least, it's arguable that a court would give greater weight to such regulations due to their source.


QR&Os are odd ducks in many respects (no pre-publication, for one); far too many in the CAF don't understand them, their role, their origin, or the significant latitude granted by the legislature to the CAF in controlling many aspects of its own destiny.  (Or for real fun, try to explain to folks the difference between legislation, regulation, policy & process)

You're quite right about the sources of QR&Os but even the GIC and TB are delegated entities under legislation.

I think that we frequently downplay the supreme role that the legislature plays in the whole scheme of our laws. Quite frankly, the individual members of the legislature rarely understands the true extent of the legislation that they are enacting because the whole process of legislative drafting is in the hands of smaller committees and specialized civil servants (including DoJ lawyers and military lawyers) of various Ministries.

However, once legislation is enacted it is out of the hands of the drafters and it is up to the courts to interpret the legislation in line with the intention of the legislature when there is a dispute or conflict about the meaning of the law.

:cheers:

 

[Haggis]

See here eg for a primer: http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~resulliv/legdr/siinscc.html

It's going to rain this weekend.  Now I have something to do.

 

[FJAG]

It's going to rain this weekend.  Now I have something to do.

I've been replacing some old lawn edging with new the last few days and have more to do. It's going to rain here too and, quite frankly, I'd rather be out in the rain laying more edging than reading law.  ;D Retirement is retirement.

:cheers:

 

[Haggis]

FJAG:  it didn't rain as much as expected so i haven't yet read your link.

Disingenuous?  Yes, but let me put some much needed (and originally omitted) context to that.

My point was not that the courts could and, possibly, would apply NDA 60 (1)ix literally.  it was that the unit chain of command would be disingenuous to lay a charge based on NDA 60(1)ix read in isolation and without the amplification of relevant regulations, instructions and policies.  Could it happen?  Of course.  A vindictive chain of command may want to make an example of him and "see what happens" when "the lawyers sort it out".  in any case it could possibly bring the discussion of what "deemed on duty" means in a pan-Reserve context back to the forefront.