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

Walts, posers & wannabes (merged)

Dimsum said:
I hold it as a point of pride that I have never set foot in the Carlie and have only been to the Tudor once.  Maybe twice.  :D

That you can remember?  ;D

I have a similar point of pride in that I have never set a sober foot in the Palace!
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I would suggest that it prompts young privates and corporals to embellish or outright lie to their chain of command about why they are not attending exercise when said members chain of command orders them to submit a memo as to why they are not attending a voluntary weekend ex as a class A reservist.

What's the reasoning for expecting anyone to justify in writing their desire not to participate in a voluntary exercise?  "Because I don't want to" would be my answer.
 
peterpan said:
wow you guys are vicious...but I too have seen ppl wear tartan bowties at mess dinners. And for OP, in your DEU #3 2 you do not wear your head dress.
FTFY
 
Pusser said:
That you can remember?  ;D

I have a similar point of pride in that I have never set a sober foot in the Palace!

Of course; the drunkenness is needed for the iron-clad alibi that "I swear I don't know how I got to the Palace"!  :nod:
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Some RCAF/Air Ops types wear the RCAF tartan bowtie vice black one.

;)

Oops....my bad, sorry. Just seeing if you were paying attention  ;D
 
Kat Stevens said:
What's the reasoning for expecting anyone to justify in writing their desire not to participate in a voluntary exercise?

Various ranks who consider the reserves a full time career vice the part time volunteer organization that it is.  While I get that max attendance makes Ex's more fulfilling from a training stand point, since you have full platoons and companies, some people's lives don't revolve around their reserve service.
 
Kat Stevens said:
What's the reasoning for expecting anyone to justify in writing their desire not to participate in a voluntary exercise?  "Because I don't want to" would be my answer.

I don't envy the challenge reserve leadership has in trying to tear troops away from their XBox's and parties in order to motivate them to come out for ex's (especially unpopular ones and not just show up for the fun stuff)

On the same note if someones legal commitment is 1X training period per-month can you punish them for meeting the bare minimum?

[topic might need a thread split to eep the OP on track?]
 
No but you don't have to 'reward' them either.  They don't get the 2 I/C pos'n, they don't get recommended for Cl B stuff, etc.
 
I would think the issue has some variability based on the unit the member belongs to, and how often it goes to the field. We have one field ex per year. One opportunity for the hard sea trades to get the majority of their practical CRRs  (combat readiness requirements) accomplished. Encouraging maximum participation, even if it comes to asking folks to substantiate their absence, is a fundamental leadership activity in the reserves.

While it's well accepted that there's no legal grounds to compel a member to parade, one shouldn't turn a blind eye to those who skate the thin edge of NES (1 parade every 30 days), or never come out to taskings or training evolutions. I see nothing wrong with asking folks to examine their priorities - as long as there's no official backlash.

MODS: perhaps a merge with the parent topic thread?
 
A lot of talk on here seems to be about higher ups getting the troops to come out. Don't forget the less troops not only can you not have full platoons out, but the ones that come out do all the work. Say on a winter ex, pushing the toboggan is a lot easier with more men to share the load. Trust me it also helps to have the troops peers to but pressure on them to come out. You know what's worst than having an officer get upset with you in the reserves for missing an ex? Your peers giving you  the stink eye, and asking you why you weren't out on ex while they participated. I have never giving anyone grief for not coming out because that just not who I 'am, but I've seen it plenty.
 
Hatchet Man said:
Various ranks who consider the reserves a full time career vice the part time volunteer organization that it is.  While I get that max attendance makes Ex's more fulfilling from a training stand point, since you have full platoons and companies, some people's lives don't revolve around their reserve service.
The problem starts at the top where the attitude that reserve service is voluntary is deeply (and wrongfully) embedded.

As a start point both regular and reserve service is voluntary insofar that you need to volunteer to join and once in you have the right to a release (but under both statutory and administrative limitations)

Reservist can be compulsorily placed on "active service" or placed on "service" or "ordered to train" by the federal cabinet or under regulations made by the federal cabinet. See the NDA ss 31 and 33 for the actual wording. The legislative mechanism is there it is just very poorly used and or ignored entirely. See also NDA s 275 re call out for service in aid to the civil power.

There are regulations already in place. QR&O 9.04(2) allows a reservists to be ordered to train not exceeding 15 days Class B and 60 days Class B per year. QR&O 9.04(3) allows the Minister of Natl Def to call out reservists in an emergency and QR&O in part authorizes the MND to delegate this power to military authorities.

In practice however these provisions are rarely used because of an ingrained attitude that only reservists who volunteer for such duties will ever be called upon.

The argument is frequently made that we do not have a enforcement mechanism because we can't charge people who don't show up when ordered because at the time they do not appear they are not subject to the code of service discipline. True enough but note that there is no such limitation on administrative consequences.

More importantly there is actually a section in the NDA that addresses the issue. Under ss 294(1) and (2) of the NDA it is an offence punishable on summary conviction for a reservist who "without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place or hour appointed". The trouble with this section is that it is not part of the CSD and is only triable before a civilian summary conviction court. The fines are $50 for an officer and $25 for a NCM for every day missed. The law was changed in 1985 to double the fine and there is no reason why it can't be increased even more to give it some teeth.

The problem isn't so much a weak enforcement system as a weak leadership system that isn't prepared to use mandatory service or enforcement systems because: 1) they either do not realize that the systems are there (and I've personally met many of these types) or 2) who are aware of them but are convinced that using anything other than volunteerism will result in many reservists taking their release (I've met many of those as well)

As a result we have reached a status quo where a large part of the forces, reg and res, see and treat reservists, quite incorrectly, as "pure volunteers". I feel the most sympathy for the hard working NCOs who can't motivate their troops to come out when the entire system has been twisted out of whack by how the chain of command misperceives the reservists roles and responsibilities.

:cheers:
 
You must have a head the size of an elephants to somehow cram all the little known (yet surprisingly useful and relevant) information you regularly contribute to the forum FJAG. Your posts certainly stand out amongst the 'why won't the CF hire me' and 'my sgt major is a dick' threads on this site. Well done (and I mean that).

Question however, in your experience as a JAG, how often were those 'punishments' actually employed. Would criminal code offences be dealt with by CM or civvy court? Cancel that, re-read your post and found my answer.
 
I agree with TTG, great post. Thanks.


You mentioned  under ss 294(1) and (2) of the NDA it is an offence punishable on summary conviction for a reservist who "without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place or hour appointed.

Is that just for emergencies or does that mean that if I am a reserve Sgt I can order my section of class A soldiers to attend a weekend brigade ex and if they don't have a lawful excuse as to why they are not attending, recommend they be charged?




 
ObedientiaZelum said:
You mentioned  under ss 294(1) and (2) of the NDA it is an offence punishable on summary conviction for a reservist who "without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place or hour appointed.

Is that just for emergencies or does that mean that if I am a reserve Sgt I can order my section of class A soldiers to attend a weekend brigade ex and if they don't have a lawful excuse as to why they are not attending, recommend they be charged?

In theory, yes.

In practise, as FJag pointed out, these offences are tried civilly.  Getting your local Crown to lay the charge is particularly difficult because the definition of "lawful excuse" is broad and the Judge's interpretation of the "lawful excuse" is quite probably subjective.  Secondly, in that the NES policy only requires a member to attend one parade during any 30 day period when a minimum of three parades have occurred leads the Crown to deduce that if a member paraded once in that period he has met the minimum administrative requirement for attendance and can be compelled to do no more unless under and Order in Council.
 
TTG - I don't actually have actual knowledge of it ever being used although I seem to have a hazy recollection of standing beside a bar at a mess dinner with a beer in my hand and speaking to someone who was aware of one. I've done a search of CanLii which turned out negative but then CanLii doesn't keep many of the Magistrate/Provincial court cases. (This type of offence would be heard by the lowest level of criminal court in the province and generally reported case law concentrates on the superior and appeal court levels)

OZ - s 294 was specifically designed for ordinary run of the mill "parade or training" so long as there was a clear order that the individual was due to be at a specific place at a specific date time. Incidentally there is a whole hockey sock of offences triable by a civilian court starting at s. 286--makes for fun reading sometimes.

OZ and Haggis - To answer your question more fully please note that one needs the COs consent in writing for the prosecution to go ahead but otherwise one could. The prosecution would have to be conducted by a Federal Crown Prosecutor with the Department of Justice and not a Provincial Prosecutor. This is because the Fed Crown is responsible for all prosecutions of offences under Federal statutes (except the CCC). When I was DJA for Manitoba and later DAJAG for Prairie, I had Justice in Winnipeg prepared to do such prosecutions (contrary to popular opinion Fed Crowns like to do more cases as that justifies higher staffing levels) but could never get any of the units on board for giving it a shot. My view was that if one ran one or two test cases through one would get a higher attend rate. The COs on the other hand were of the view that once you started this type of process they or their staff would end up spending half their time in civvy court (and also the old "everyone will quit" argument).

Haggis - "lawful excuse" isn't that hard for a judge to determine. There are hundreds of offences that use the term "lawful excuse". It's what falls between offences that requires a mental element to do wrong (like murder), from ones that are absolute liability where no mental element is required and no excuse is available (such as speeding). In between the two extremes is an area called strict liability where even though you have done the act you are allowed to raise a lawful excuse or due diligence defence. The judge determines if your excuse is a good one or not.

Secondly, don't confuse the NES policies with QR&O 9.04. QR&O 9.04 permits a CO to order individuals to train up to the maximums set out (15/60: anything above that would in fact be voluntary). The NES policy merely sets out a time frame for the unit to start administrative action to release the individual. (Again in my days as DJA and DAJAG we had to deal with kit recovery issues and found that most units were pretty slack at enforcing or following NES procedures. (Don't get me wrong, I know those procedures are an administrative hardship on units and most units were doing as well as they could under the circumstances but basically the NES procedures were generally poorly followed.)

:cheers:


 
FJAG said:
OZ and Haggis - To answer your question more fully please note that one needs the COs consent in writing for the prosecution to go ahead but otherwise one could. The prosecution would have to be conducted by a Federal Crown Prosecutor with the Department of Justice and not a Provincial Prosecutor. This is because the Fed Crown is responsible for all prosecutions of offences under Federal statutes (except the CCC). When I was DJA for Manitoba and later DAJAG for Prairie, I had Justice in Winnipeg prepared to do such prosecutions (contrary to popular opinion Fed Crowns like to do more cases as that justifies higher staffing levels) but could never get any of the units on board for giving it a shot. My view was that if one ran one or two test cases through one would get a higher attend rate. The COs on the other hand were of the view that once you started this type of process they or their staff would end up spending half their time in civvy court (and also the old "everyone will quit" argument).

Haggis - "lawful excuse" isn't that hard for a judge to determine. There are hundreds of offences that use the term "lawful excuse". It's what falls between offences that requires a mental element to do wrong (like murder), from ones that are absolute liability where no mental element is required and no excuse is available (such as speeding). In between the two extremes is an area called strict liability where even though you have done the act you are allowed to raise a lawful excuse or due diligence defence. The judge determines if your excuse is a good one or not.

When I was RSM of a Reserve unit three years ago  I had spoken with both a JAG and local Crown about laying charges under s 294.  Both seemed  inclined to burn incense and sacrifice an animal to ward off this CWO rather than discuss a possible prosecution.  Secondly, the Crown believed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction due to the lack of basic understanding of the requirements of "militia service" by local judges.
Thankfully there is more than one way to skin a cat and I was able to deal with that problem individual by other means. 
 
Haggis said:
Secondly, the Crown believed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction due to the lack of basic understanding of the requirements of "militia service" by local judges.

Judges deal with issues infinitely more complex than this all the time. Think of a medical malpractice suit; a technical patent suit; hell, figuring out who is the best parent to look after the kids in a divorce is harder than this issue.

Neither "militia service" nor "law" is rocket science. The proof is simple: evidence that the individual is a member of the reserve force; evidence that an order was given to him to be at x place at y time; and evidence he wasn't there. (Drum role - Ta Da) unless he brings convincing evidence of a "lawful excuse" you get a conviction. My guess is the guy would probably plead guilty anyway because who wants to hire a lawyer at a couple of hundred bucks an hour to fight a $25 fine.

Sounds to me like you were given a mealy-mouthed piece of legal jargon to convince you to go away. Disappointing you didn't get the support you should have.  :clubinhand:

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
Sounds to me like you were given a mealy-mouthed piece of legal jargon to convince you to go away. Disappointing you didn't get the support you should have. 

That NEVER happens!  :eek:

The good thing about lawyers is that they give advice, not direction.  In the end, I looked also at the cost benefit of prosecuting this via s 294 in time, effort and Class A pay for all involved.  It would've been an expensive way to gain a conviction worth a $75 fine.

Like I stated earlier, there was more than one way to deal with this individual and my desired end state was achieved.
 
But it's not the $75 fine that we'd be looking for it's the "encouragement" to the other soldiers that we as the military would benefit from.
 
Back
Top