- Reaction score
- 1,257
- Points
- 1,160
What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?
May be he is "Leading Change".
May be he is "Leading Change".
This won't hit either of thier PER until next writting season ... but you can be sure thier names will be recognized at meriting time.Rifleman62 said:What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?
MCG said:This won't hit either of thier PER until next writting season ... but you can be sure thier names will be recognized at meriting time.
tomahawk6 said:Menard and anyone else that has violated the fraternization policy needs to be retired. If they dont have enough time in to retire they should get severence and sent packing.
Rifleman62 said:What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?
May be he is "Leading Change".
tomahawk6 said:Menard and anyone else that has violated the fraternization policy needs to be retired. If they dont have enough time in to retire they should get severence and sent packing.
Container said:I have no experience with the National Defence Act-
but it looks like Section 130 (with regards to Obstruction of Justice 139(2) CC) is used to make an offence when the offence happened outside of Canada.
The key part of the 139(2) is the "willful" attempt to subvert the course of justice. And without knowing the details I fail to see how he could be charged with this offence. The first part of 139 is dealing with sureties and judicial proceedings- section 2 expands the scope so as to not limit the sections application, simply refusing to answer a police officers questions about who was involved would not result in this charge. Or at least it shouldnt. A person isnt compelled to give a statement about themseleves or anyone else.
Now if he outright lied- sent emails to people to create a story, or attempted to create a story which he then relayed as the truth than maybe. At least my limited understanding would point to this- its a charge I have seen once on paper and was promptly tossed. It along with 129 of the CC are ermm...difficult to prove.
They require Mens Rea- it has been held that for Section 139(2) to result in a conviction it is required that the crown prove knowledge of the "falsity" of the statement,. I dont know how you would prove that his recollection hadn't failed him.
Again- Im not overly familiar with the section but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would apply it unless an elaborate story had been concocted to cover someones tracks. If forced to speculate- and being that this is speculation worth nothing. It may just be a "dog pile" charge and in my experience courts hate those. Pointed, laser like, application of the code is always more appropriate and desirable. Some lawyers disagree believing it gives more to bargin with- but the ones I respect most are of a like mind. You only charge a person with whats appropriate- not everything that can be laid so that you can bargain. Just cause you can swear the information doesn't mean you should.
Curious thing this NDA! Thanks for the read gentlemen!
Apollo Diomedes said:When do we see the General in charge of our messed up procurment process and crap we buy sent packing?
:The former Canadian commander of troops in Afghanistan has already been penalized for an alleged relationship with a junior soldier and shouldn’t face any more punishment, his lawyer says.
Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet says a decision by the military to lay charges against Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard after removing him from command and cancelling a pending appointment is excessive.
The military is also making an unfair example of Ménard while staying quiet for weeks in the case of Col. Bernard Oullette, the Canadian commander in Haiti who lost his job for allegedly having an affair with a civilian working for the United Nations, in a similar breach of military rules.
“I’m not sure what the public interest would be in proceeding against Gen. Ménard since the punishment’s already been handed out as far as we’re concerned,” Sweet said in a telephone interview from St. John’s.
“He’s certainly already answered for it twice” ....
milnews.ca said:This from the Toronto Star: :
dapaterson said:Would that be CLS, who signs off on Army requirements?