• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

Gramps

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
RCDcpl said:
I agree and disagree.  Civvie side he would probably get a similar sentence, however he would have also had quite a bit of pre trial (in my experience at least).  Unless I missed it somewhere it doesn't seem like he spent anything more than a bail hearing in pre trial custody....and even then I didn't notice that, I'm just assuming.

Couple with the fact you see that Toronto doctor recently get 10 for groping 21 patients.  21/2 = 10.5.  So that doc got exactly double the sex assault convictions this guy did.

10 years = 120 months.  So this medic gets not even half the sentence.  I know the Toronto case the patients were sedated, however in this case it wasn't much different as the guy used the fact he knew the women wanted the job to keep them from defending themselves and both he and the doctor were in a position of trust.

I stand by my opinion that the CF dropped the ball hard on this one.....especially in light of that article in macleans.

That Toronto Doctor did a hell of a lot more than just simply grope patients.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,691
Points
1,110
Gramps said:
That Toronto Doctor did a hell of a lot more than just simply grope patients.

Plus they were sedated when he did what he did.

The doctor not going to have a good time in jail.......neither is the medic.
 
S

smale436

Guest
35 charges so far.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cpl-derrick-gallagher-faces-7-new-charges-in-sex-assault-probe-1.2643976
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,562
Points
1,160
The newest statistics in this debate are now out.  Still disappointing, but believable (unlike the articles from April).

1 in 13 female Canadian soldiers sexually assaulted, but the number may be higher
Emily Chan and Jordan Chittley
CTVNews.ca
15 Aug 2014

Statistics Canada released a survey Friday indicating one in 13 female full-time members of the Canadian Forces had been sexually assaulted in connection with their service, but one expert said the numbers should be much higher.

Of the women surveyed, 7.6 per cent of women reported experiencing "sexual assault while deployed on CF operation or in CF workplace or by CF member or civilian DND employee."

However, 15.6 per cent of women surveyed reported experiencing "sexual assault or unwanted sexual touching while deployed on CF operation or in CF workplace or by CF member or civilian DND employee."

University of Ottawa Phd candidate Ashley Bickerton said while those statistics are troubling, she believes the actual numbers are far higher.

"When we speak about sexual assault in the military we need to be focussing in on one in six rather than one in 13," Bickerton told CTV News Channel on Friday. "We need to be asking more questions related to systemic sexual harassment" in the military, she said.

Bickerton said the reason why she believes it is actually much higher is because the definitions are outdated.

Bickerton said the two definitions Statistics Canada used for the survey are actually one in the same. Statistics Canada said they used those definitions because it coincided with past definitions so they would be able to make accurate comparisons.

"That's fair, but I think that things have changed in recent years," Bickerton said. "Our understanding of sexual assault has certainly been made much more contemporary. Our understanding is much more broad than it has been in the past."

Statistics Canada surveyed 6,700 full-time service members between April and August of 2013. It would not include anyone who was sexually assaulted and left the military or reserves forces. The survey was part of the greater Canadian Forces Mental Health Survey, which also looked at mental health and alcohol use.

Regardless of the numbers in this survey, Bickerton said this is a longstanding problem that needs to be addressed.

A retired judge is currently in the process of putting together an external review into sexual assault policy and procedures, training and culture in the Canadian Armed Forces. The results are expected next spring.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
I know there is a thread on it, but couldn't find it....please move this if you find the proper thread....

Canadian soldier acquitted on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate
By: Martin Ouellet, The Canadian Press 08/22/2014
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/canadian-soldier-acquitted-on-charge-of-sexually-assaulting-female-subordinate-272295001.html

QUEBEC - A Canadian Forces warrant officer threw himself into his lawyer's arms and his friends let out whoops of joy as he was acquitted Friday on a charge of sexually assaulting a female subordinate.

Andre Gagnon, 48, was on trial for the alleged sexual assault of then-corporal Stephanie Raymond in December 2011 at an armoury near Quebec City.

His court martial was overseen by a colonel in front of a panel of five male soldiers who reached the verdict.

Gagnon's lawyers said the sex was consensual, while the Crown argued that he used his superior rank to coerce Raymond, 30, into carnal acts.

One of Raymond's lawyers, Lt.-Col. Marylene Trudel, accused Gagnon during the court martial of using her client as an "open bar'' for his sexual gratification.

Gagnon faced one count under Sec. 130 of the National Defence Act as well as the Criminal Code section corresponding to sexual assault.

Raymond, who served under Gagnon, testified that he made advances, engaged in sexual touching and attempted to get oral sex after a holiday party.

Raymond, who was not present for the verdict, said she initially went along with his actions because she feared later reprisals.

The panel did not give reasons for its verdict, but Maj. Philippe-Luc Boutin, who defended Gagnon, said his client testified in a very clear and precise manner.

"He didn't try to hide or diminish his own involvement in the sexual exchange that was carried out," Boutin said.

"At the end of the day, I don't think Ms. Raymond had the same approach. She was very evasive on many issues . . . so the jury, I think, had serious doubts about the truthfulness of her story."

Raymond's lawyers said they will review the evidence and decide whether to appeal the verdict within 30 days.
more on link

- mod edit of thread title to better reflect more recent developments -
 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,816
Points
1,040
Rocky Mountains said:
Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.

The sole charge was s130NDA(ie s 271CCC) Sexual Assault. Consent is very material to this charge. The fact that the complainant was a subordinate would be solely on the question as to whether or not the consent was real or coerced. A not guilty finding leads to the conclusion that the panel had a reasonable doubt as to whether the consent was involuntary notwithstanding the rank issue.

Whether or not the sex with a subordinate issue is grounds for administrative action or whether it should be the basis of some other charge such as under 129 (Conduct to the prejudice ...) is a separate matter.

The question of consent in a sexual assault case is always a difficult one to deal with. That doesn't mean that one should have a presumption against consent that the accused must disprove. The legal standard in both Canada and the US is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The crown has the onus of proving all of the essential elements of the offence. A presumption of no consent in every case where there is a disparity of power would turn our legal standards on its head.

Having said that, in any case where consent is an issue, factual evidence of a disparity of power is certainly taken into account by the trier of fact (judge alone or jury) to determine as to whether or not the consent was coerced.

:cheers:
 

MSEng314

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Rocky Mountains said:
Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed?  I think the Yanks do it that way.

So we should prohibit any relationship between serving members if they are of different rank? We would have to dismiss so many people that we may as well disband the military... Clearly you haven't thought this through.
 

Dissident

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Rocky Mountains said:
Consent should be immaterial.  Sex with a subordinate should be cause for dismissal.  End of story.  How can consent ever be assumed? 

Yeah, no.

I've seen many relationships between members of different ranks, some in supervisory roles, including my marriage. My wife started out as my section I/C and as I like to joke: I slept my way to the top!. Kidding aside, as long as the relationship doesn't interfere with operations, it shouldn't be a problem.

I do draw the line at relationships between instructors/staff with students. That's a whole other dynamic at play.
 

Old EO Tech

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
NinerSix said:
Yeah, no.

I've seen many relationships between members of different ranks, some in supervisory roles, including my marriage. My wife started out as my section I/C and as I like to joke: I slept my way to the top!. Kidding aside, as long as the relationship doesn't interfere with operations, it shouldn't be a problem.

I do draw the line at relationships between instructors/staff with students. That's a whole other dynamic at play.

Most units I have served with have fraternization policies against relationships between supervisors and direct subordinates(ie you are writing or influencing a PDR/PER) at the very least.  CF Schools for certain have policies against student/instructor frat.  So yes theoretically the accused could still face CSD charges if his unit has such a policy and the Cpl was under his supervision.
 

Dissident

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Old EO Tech said:
Most units I have served with have fraternization policies against relationships between supervisors and direct subordinates(ie you are writing or influencing a PDR/PER) at the very least.  CF Schools for certain have policies against student/instructor frat.  So yes theoretically the accused could still face CSD charges if his unit has such a policy and the Cpl was under his supervision.

In the crudest way: People will bang. Take like minded people, put them together and relationships are bound to happen. Are we to "fire" everyone who gets in a relationship outside of their rank in the military? What happens if one of them gets promoted?

That said I should probably expand on my situation, for clarity: At the begining of the relationship a few people knew, peers and subordinates mostly, no one had any issues. As the relationship grew, successive layers of leadership were involved. It didn't take too long for us to approach the Pl WO to lay it all out. We had already had been seperated into different sections during regular re-org, so from this point on we have been kept from being in the same CoC.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,769
Points
1,060
Canadian soldier acquitted on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate

As it says 'acquitted' and by a jury of his peers.

He should now be allowed to get on with his life, without the armchair quarterbacks coming out and trying to parse the decision of the Courts Martial. 
 

Old EO Tech

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
NinerSix said:
In the crudest way: People will bang. Take like minded people, put them together and relationships are bound to happen. Are we to "fire" everyone who gets in a relationship outside of their rank in the military? What happens if one of them gets promoted?

That said I should probably expand on my situation, for clarity: At the begining of the relationship a few people knew, peers and subordinates mostly, no one had any issues. As the relationship grew, successive layers of leadership were involved. It didn't take too long for us to approach the Pl WO to lay it all out. We had already had been seperated into different sections during regular re-org, so from this point on we have been kept from being in the same CoC.

Yes people do get into relationships, but the CO also needs his/her unit to operate effectively, and maybe in yours and others situations your relationship doesn't effect morale, but the potential is always their, so yes as in your situation people simply need to be moved to ensure that one partner is not any were near supervising the other.  There are lots of service couples and in most cases they are not even in the same unit.  As long as you come forward and advise the CoC that you are in a relationship with someone in your direct CoC, you are fine.  It's when you don't do that that you can be held accountable for violating the frat policy, which is an order from the CO.
 

opcougar

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
There is still that saying though..."Don't crap where you eat". Personally, that CADPAT is a turn off for me on the opposite sex. Yes I have seen many in civvies and said to myself, I wouldn't mind banging that, but then you see them in CADPAT again, and deflates those thoughts.
 

Brasidas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
opcougar said:
There is still that saying though..."Don't crap where you eat". Personally, that CADPAT is a turn off for me on the opposite sex. Yes I have seen many in civvies and said to myself, I wouldn't mind banging that, but then you see them in CADPAT again, and deflates those thoughts.

Living in barracks amongst coursemates for several months (with less than 40 hours a week having any responsibility) and just watching the soap opera was plenty for me.

Maybe watching or being a part of the kind of sh!+storms that can happen on a slack 3's (and having to live with them for another few months should be a part of SHARP training.

I mean no disrespect to the parties involved in this case. I understand that both clearly inappropriate relationships and good relationships happen in the CF, but early exposure to severe trainwrecks make pretty good object lessons.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,685
Points
1,260
Coming up next - an appeal by the prosecution:
On 17 September 2014, a notice of appeal was filed in the case of R vs Warrant Officer JGA Gagnon concerning the not-guilty verdict handed down on 22 August 2014 by the General Court Martial. This General Court Martial had been convened in order to try WO Gagnon on the charge of sexual assault filed under Section 130 of the National Defence Act, in violation of Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The prosecution argues in its notice of appeal that the military judge had erred in submitting the defence of “honest but mistaken belief in consent” for decision by the Committee. The notice of appeal was filed with the Court Martial Appeal Court, as the civil court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of court martial decisions ....
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,562
Points
1,160
Interesting development in this story.  It appears to be a FA decision on a grievance.  Hopefully some administrative house-cleaning and disciplinary stuff takes place in the unit that had her punted.

Stéphanie Raymond wins step in military sexual assault case
Tom Lawson, Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Defence Staff, says Raymond firing based on fradulent documents

CBC NEWS
20 Dec 2014

A former military corporal who said she faced reprisals after accusing a superior of sexual assault feels vindicated after the Canadian Armed Forces extended an apology and reparations to her.

Stéphanie Raymond said the outcome will have positive repercussions, particularly for women as well as for some men serving in the Canadian military.

In 2012, Raymond accused Warrant Officer André Gagnon of sexually assaulting her in 2011. Gagnon was acquitted by a military jury last August.

Raymond waived her right to anonymity in the court proceedings.

Despite the acquittal, Raymond continued her fight against the military for retaliation she said she faced following the complaint until she was fired at the end of 2013.

“It’s been a hard road. It’s a path a lot of people abandon along the way. I decided not to abandon it, to the detriment of my career,” Raymond said.

In a 21-page letter sent to Raymond on Dec. 18, the CAF’s Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson admitted Raymond had been treated badly by higher-ranking officer in her regiment. The chief of staff also wrote that Raymond had been fired based on information found in fraudulent documents.

Lawson said the documents used to dishonourably discharge Raymond were not in line with military firing procedures.

Raymond asked for $85,000 in moral and punitive damages for her ordeal. Lawson said he agreed with her request but lacked the authority to grant it, therefore he would transfer this request to the director of claims and civil litigation.

Her lawyer, Michel Drapeau, said he'd never seen such a strong criticism of the military chain of command by a Chief of Defence Staff.

Raymond said she was very satisfied with the response from the chief of staff. Even so, she rejected the offer to have her job and rank back, saying she feared for her psychological and physical well-being if she were to reintegrate into the Canadian military.

She said she would never be able to turn the page if she went back. She is now in university, studying administration.

This is the closure of just one of the chapters in Raymond’s fight. Her appeal is scheduled to be heard by a military court in 2016.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/st%C3%A9phanie-raymond-wins-step-in-military-sexual-assault-case-1.2880415
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,562
Points
1,160
MCG said:
Hopefully some administrative house-cleaning and disciplinary stuff takes place in the unit that had her punted.
Looks like the Army Commander is getting this ball rolling.

Military Sex Assault
The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
29 Jan 2015

OTTAWA - The country's top military commander has ordered an investigation into how a soldier was treated by the army after she complained of being sexually assaulted by a superior officer.

Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, ordered the board of inquiry into the case of former master corporal Stephanie Raymond on Wednesday, one day after she was given a post-release promotion, a decoration and a certificate of service.

The commander of the army, Lt.-Gen. Marquis Haines, announced the inquiry in a statement, saying the technical investigation will look at how she was treated from the time she filed her initial harassment complaint until her release in December 2013.

The statement said "irregularities in administrative procedures'' prompted the investigation, but the military did not explain what that means.

Raymond's case was featured on the covers of Maclean's and L'actualite magazines last year in articles that claimed sexual assaults had reached epidemic levels in the military.

She was described in the reports as a model soldier who suddenly became an "administrative burden'' when she reported the alleged assault in 2011 to military authorities.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,685
Points
1,260
MCG said:
Looks like the Army Commander is getting this ball rolling.
A bit more from the Army Commander's statement:
“Following direction from General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, to conduct an administrative investigation into irregularities in administrative procedures concerning Master Corporal (Ret’d) Raymond’s file, I am convening a military Board of Inquiry (BOI) to be led by Col D.A. MacIsaac as the president.

“The Board of Inquiry will look into irregularities raised by the CDS in his decision on the grievances presented by MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond regarding the way she was treated from the time she filed her initial harassment complaint until her release in December 2013. The aim of the BOI is to advise me on the actions and decisions taken in this specific case and to present recommendations that can improve our administrative procedures going forward.

“Every member of our Army family needs to feel safe, supported and free to bring issues to the attention of the Army leadership without fear of retaliation by his or her chain of command. Mutual understanding, respect and trust are critical elements of our military ethos. It is the responsibility of Army leadership to ensure those values are extended to all our men and women in uniform.

“A BOI is an internal, non-judicial, administrative investigation to examine and report on significant events that may affect the functioning of the Canadian Armed Forces. Any irregularity or lack of transparency in decision-making which suggests a member of our Army Team may not have been treated fairly or equally affects our greatest strength—our people.”

Lieutenant General Marquis Hainse, CMM, MSC, CD
Commander Canadian Army

Another interesting twist, also via the Army's Commander....
(On January 27, 2015) at Valcartier Garrison, Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, Commander Canadian Army (CCA), presented Master Corporal (Retired) Stéphanie Raymond with her Master Corporal appointment. MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond was also presented with her Canadian Forces Decoration and Certificate of Service.

These recognitions were confirmed on December 18, 2014, by the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, in his response to MCpl (Ret'd) Raymond's grievances regarding irregularities in the administration of her career.

The three presentations represent the first step in addressing the issues she raised in her grievances and reflect the appointment and recognition MCpl (Ret’d) Raymond merited upon retirement.
 
Top