VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[Petard]

Considering the reason to not proceed is due to evidence not uncovered during the investigation (which sounds like it should have been), but uncovered by the defence,  why stay the charges and not dismiss them?

Sounds more like an attempt to prevent any recourse for mistakes made either by those that conducted the investigation, or even possibly those in the PPSC in the way the case unfolded and now left to dangle

 

[kratz]

I'm glad I donated to his GoFundme last fall. He needed all the support that we could offer.

Fairly certain the witch hunt will now transition to an administrative one, and that they will seek a 2(a) release.

QR&O Vol 1, Chpt 15, Table 15.01, 2(a)

Unsatisfactory Service: Unsatisfactory Conduct

VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply.

During the Q&A at the mess, one reporter asked about "possible Administrative Action" against the him. No real answer came out of the question.
VAdm lawyer mentioned in the mess, he team's disclosure to the crown was due to government withholding information from all legal teams. This is nugget of information is not the fault of the prosecution and in mind, clearly indicates how the government dug in for this fight.

It'll be an interesting read as more information becomes available over the next while. I'd like to confirm the charges are withdrawn (dropped) vs stayed.
In one case he's free and clear, but if the charges are stayed, in theory the crown could restart the case within a year, so after the election.



Note: The thread title has been updated to reflect the recent changes.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So by staying the charges they leave him financially devastated with no means to answer or repudiate the claims against him, in a politically charged case.

I doubt this is going away as some would hope

The MND did confirm today that the government will be picking up VAdm Norman's legal fees, the amount to be determined.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm going to take the Director of PPSC at her word this didn't happen.  I do suspect the PMO was probably briefed on the status of this investigation, and perhaps knew ahead of time that a charge would be filed.  I think it was stupid for the PM to publically comment about Norman inevitably going to court.  But I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the PMO being briefed on the status of an investigation involving someone as significant as the VCDS.

There is documented evidence on the record including admissions by Crown counsel that (1) they directly met several times with PMO staff, (2) PMO staff offered suggestions to "engineer the outcome" and (3) Jody Wilson Rayboud stated in her testimony that this matter was discussed at Cabinet and that the discussions were privileged. So, was there political instruction-no. Was there attempts at political influence - yes. Were decisions of the PPSC actually influenced--it's too easy to say no.

 

[Monsoon]

VAdm Norman was not convicted of anything so the three sub-categories of the reference do not apply.

If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, OR conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).

Maybe they won't go the 2(a) route, but my sense is that the nightmare isn't completely at an end for VAdm Norman just yet.

 

[Navy_Pete]

My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.

Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.

 

[Haggis]

If you read the third criterion for 2(a) carefully, you can see there's room to use it without a conviction: "By reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, OR conviction by a civil court..." (emphasis mine).

I doubt that 15.01 (2)(a) fits because his alleged unsatisfactory conduct was not civil in nature and there is no conviction.  There's still the remote possibility of an AR being conducted which could result in a recommendation for release.  I doubt that, too, now that the MND has agreed to cover his legal fees.

My initial thought was that 'no one in DND would be that dumb to not just let this go'.

Then upon reflection, realized when I've thought that in the past, someone in DND has taken the 'hold my beer' approach and proven me wrong.

I'm sure nobody in NDHQ is sharpening the pitchforks just yet.  The corporate/institutional next steps regarding any career action (positive or negative) will be very, very carefully thought through by the CDSs and MNDs staffs.

 

[Stoker]

So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.

 

[FSTO]

So what job can VAdm Norman actually have now? I believe he's over 55. He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him. I think he will be retiring soon.

He's likely is good to CRA 60 and all you have to do now is at age 59 submit a memo asking for a 1 year extension. At least this is how it works for us non GOFO's. They (GOFO) are likely under totally different TOS.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The charges were only stayed, not withdrawn. Probably keep him in the same situation until at least after the election.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2019/08_05_19.html

But therein might be more legal action.  The Crown Prosocuter made it very clear "it was over" and "no reasonable grounds to convict".  Maybe the non-interferring office in this non-interferred with the wrong wording??? :tsktsk:

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Chief Engineer]  He says he wants his old job back, I really can't see that happening knowing all the backstabbing that was done to him.
[/quote]

 

[Cloud Cover]

CO of Asterix, plus he's in charge of the nukes. Seriously the man needs some time to heal and to get his family back in a good place. Family first.

And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, under our system, a Stay of Proceedings is the only way for the AG and his/her substitute (which is what the prosecutors are) to actually put a stop to a criminal cases without requiring the permission of the court.

While it is permissible for the proceedings to then be recommenced by mere notice to that effect of the AG or substitute, such recommencement must occur, at maximum, within the first year following the stay. Otherwise, the case simply disappears and it is as if it was never instituted. This way of dying off is exactly what will happen here - so no consequences for the Admiral for the crown choosing this way of disposing of the matter.

A more elegant way would have been to inform the Court that in this matter, the crown would have no evidence to present to the court, which would have led to an acquittal. But the crown doesn't usually do that as it prefers to keep the possibility of new evidence being developed by investigators thus leading to reconsideration of the decision to stay. This, trust me, will not happen here.

Also, remember that even being declared not guilty in a criminal case, which is quite different than being declared innocent - which in our system of criminal law we do not do - has no bearing on administrative proceedings, which must then stand on the merits of the actual evidence entered in such proceedings. Only a finding of guilt becomes a binding fact on administrative bodies.

In any case, the mere declaration by the prosecutor that there are no reasonable chances of success in the present case would make it difficult for anyone to re-open the proceedings without strong showing of new and previously unavailable evidence.

Finally, as to his return to his old job, remember that GOFO's serve at the crown's discretion. Unlike soldiers/airmen or seamen in the course of their contract, they can be asked by the crown to step down at any time - so long as the crown can bear the political optics of such decision. In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.   

 

[Monsoon]

And, see attached screen shot. Is this over or just beginning...

That (the tweet) makes sense of what happened today. Remember that the prosecutor herself didn’t get to see the contents of the PMO emails until they were recently unsealed by the judge. As soon as she could read them, she realized the PMO had been interfering with witnesses and that it scotched her whole case. I have a sneaking suspicion that this interference/direction to witnesses is what Leslie was going to testify to.

In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire.   

Nope, he said he looks forward to his “immediate reinstatement” as VCDS and that he has a story to tell and that he intends to tell it. Stand by for much, much more to come.

 

[NavyShooter]

And the REAL evil thoughts in my mind are...what would happen if, shortly after he retired, he stepped into politics...and ran in the federal riding of Papineau...perhaps as an independent...

 

[The Bread Guy]

And this from the CDS ...

General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, made the following statement:

“On Wednesday, 8 May, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada stayed the proceedings against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

“This stay eliminates the conditions that caused me to relieve Vice-Admiral Norman from his military duties in January of 2017– in accordance with the Queen’s Regulations and Orders section 101.09.

“As we know, the RCMP conducted and completed its investigation, charges were laid, and the proceedings have now been stayed. In this new context, the Queen’s Regulations and Orders specifically state: “[t]he authority who relieves an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty shall order that the member return to duty when the circumstances giving rise to the decision to relieve the member from the performance of military duty are no longer present….”

“In that context, Vice-Admiral Norman and I will be discussing his return to regular duty at the earliest opportunity.

“This decision ends court proceedings that have been a long and difficult process for Vice-Admiral Norman, his family and for the Canadian Armed Forces.

“We have missed Vice-Admiral Norman a great deal and I look forward to welcoming him back to work as soon as possible.”

- 30 -​

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If he resigns/retires then he is a free man to say and do whatever. Bringing him back in means they can gag him.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Actually, under our system, a Stay of Proceedings is the only way for the AG and his/her substitute (which is what the prosecutors are) to actually put a stop to a criminal cases without requiring the permission of the court.

While it is permissible for the proceedings to then be recommenced by mere notice to that effect of the AG or substitute, such recommencement must occur, at maximum, within the first year following the stay. Otherwise, the case simply disappears and it is as if it was never instituted. This way of dying off is exactly what will happen here - so no consequences for the Admiral for the crown choosing this way of disposing of the matter.

A more elegant way would have been to inform the Court that in this matter, the crown would have no evidence to present to the court, which would have led to an acquittal. But the crown doesn't usually do that as it prefers to keep the possibility of new evidence being developed by investigators thus leading to reconsideration of the decision to stay. This, trust me, will not happen here.

Also, remember that even being declared not guilty in a criminal case, which is quite different than being declared innocent - which in our system of criminal law we do not do - has no bearing on administrative proceedings, which must then stand on the merits of the actual evidence entered in such proceedings. Only a finding of guilt becomes a binding fact on administrative bodies.

In any case, the mere declaration by the prosecutor that there are no reasonable chances of success in the present case would make it difficult for anyone to re-open the proceedings without strong showing of new and previously unavailable evidence.

Finally, as to his return to his old job, remember that GOFO's serve at the crown's discretion. Unlike soldiers/airmen or seamen in the course of their contract, they can be asked by the crown to step down at any time - so long as the crown can bear the political optics of such decision. In the present case, if the MND has already stated they would pay the Admiral's legal bill (and pay him any payments he would have otherwise received but missed on due to this fracas, I hope) and since the Admiral stated that such action and an apology from the government is all he wanted, it would be a nice gesture and easy closing for the government to actually apologize and arrange for his return at his old job, but so that he could then officially and honourably retire. 

What happens when he tries to enter the US and is rejected due to the stay?

The records don't just "go away".

 

[Haggis]

What happens when he tries to enter the US and is rejected due to the stay?

The records don't just "go away".

A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.