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

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,236
Points
1,010
Not touching this one, since we’re talking a real and ongoing case. We’ll see what crown and the courts do.
I expect that Jonny V is going down, based on what Kelli B taped and provided to the NCIS. It is pretty hard to argue against real testimony that will be played in court.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
672
Points
910
Convicted by a civil authority of any serious offence.

I believe Vance has been charged with Obstruction. That's pretty serious..........if convicted.

Does anyone know if the judge is a trudeau appointee?
I believe Vance was charged under CCC s 139(2) which is a hybrid offence. The Crown has elected to proceed summarily, so he could be liable for up to 2 years less a day and a $5000 fine. If the Crown had elected to proceed by indictment, he could have served up to ten years.

No idea who the judge is and I don't think it matters as this is Ontario Provincial Court, not Federal Court.
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
239
Points
560
So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him? I'm unaware of the process and requirements, but I would say yes to at least the first two.
The CD is probably the hardest one to take away. He could perhaps lose his most recent bar if he was charged and convicted for something by the military, but to take the actual medal away he would have to be charged and convicted for something in his first 12 years. Granted, there are exceptional circumstances such as Russel Williams, but this doesn't meet that threshold.
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
239
Points
560
in the not too distant past by my reckoning Halifax JRs had a woman's night every week that did very well. The local female population seemed to enjoy it.
Stuff like that has happened since messes were invented. Probably one of the warning signs from the past should have been when soldiers, etc were afraid to bring their girlfriend/wife into the mess. Although, there were likely other reasons for this as well.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
341
Points
980
I wonder what the exact details of the obstruction charge on Vance refer to? If the gist of this is: "Hey, don't share the details of our private affair with anyone, that's private."

I wonder how that will be assessed against "intentionally attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice".

Is pursuing a disciplinary matter (the inappropriate relationship) a "course of justice" or is that reserved for crimes?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,051
Points
910
I wonder what the exact details of the obstruction charge on Vance refer to? If the gist of this is: "Hey, don't share the details of our private affair with anyone, that's private."

I wonder how that will be assessed against "intentionally attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice".

Is pursuing a disciplinary matter (the inappropriate relationship) a "course of justice" or is that reserved for crimes?
Military Justice is still theoretically justice...
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
At the end of the day if someone still did A Good Thing a bunch of years ago, that isn’t erased by malfeasance later on down the road.

That's not the way a vocal minority wants it to be, and they're getting their way in a lot of places.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,419
Points
1,060
Coates hung out to dry....


Former top NORAD commander was investigated for months after defence department said he broke no rules​

Christopher Coates was the subject of a high-level military meeting following reports of an affair

An alleged extramarital affair involving Canada's former top commander at NORAD was investigated by military police for several months after the Department of National Defence (DND) publicly stated that no rules were broken by former lieutenant-general Christopher Coates.

Sources with knowledge of the probe told CBC News that interviews were conducted and statements taken from witnesses last spring — several weeks after the department publicly backed Coates.

Meanwhile, an access to information request filed by CBC News — looking for briefings and notes exchanged among senior military leaders about how the allegations were handled — was recently denied on the grounds that an active investigation was taking place.

CBC asked the defence department to explain the contradiction. It also asked DND when the investigation of Coates started, whether it has concluded and whether it yielded any action.


 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,658
Points
1,160
…I wonder if the “high-level military meeting” involved his sister-in-law (ie. wife of his brother, [edit]Cdr(Ret’d) Curtis Coates)?


* Edited to correct LGen(Ret’d) Coates’ brother’s name.
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
373
Points
910
So. Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.

And?

Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,107
Points
990
So. Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.

And?

Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.
Huge deal for the Americans. Adultery is still a UCMJ offense. One of those things where if you're working in a host nation on behalf of yours, you have to respect and play by their rules.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
High-level people have to be trusted by allies. Not all allies view adulterers as trustworthy. Yes, that may be disappointing on their part. But it's the real world in which we have to fit.
 

Cronicbny

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
So. Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.

And?

Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.
The challenge here relates entirely to his position as the Deputy Commander of a bi-national Command. He knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that any extra-marital affair would be viewed very unfavourably by his US CoC. I agree that nothing was contrary to Canadian law or CSD... only contrary to the ethical/moral standards I think we should (at a minimum) expect from a 3 star General Officer. It was embarassing to many of the uniformed Canadians in the Commands, and it caused some really unnecessary awkwardness given his Assessor responsibilities that come with the position.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect our GO/FOs to display the highest moral and ethical standards. If they don't meet the threshold, they should be held responsible.

Perhaps the worst part of this - after clearly missing the mark of ethical/moral standards as the Deputy - is that the institution thought it perfectly fine to then put him in Command at CJOC. That decision is so tone deaf, given the Tri-Command relationship between NORAD, USNORTHCOM and CJOC- the bridges with Senior US military and DoD were already burned/burning... how could that have come out of COA analysis as the favoured option?

Alas, here we are.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
373
Points
910
Huge deal for the Americans. Adultery is still a UCMJ offense. One of those things where if you're working in a host nation on behalf of yours, you have to respect and play by their rules.

Ya, I know the UCMJ piece, but...why does Canadian news care about this, today?

To keep a ball rolling, I suspect...
 

MARS

Sr. Member
Mentor
Reaction score
70
Points
380
…I wonder if the “high-level military meeting” involved his sister-in-law (ie. wife of his brother, Capt(N) Matthew Coates)?
I think that is the wrong Coates? I have met the DM's hubby while at NORAD - and it isn't Capt(N) Coates...but I don't know if there is also a familial relation between Capt(N) Coates and LGen Coates as well, or not...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
373
Points
910
nothing was contrary to Canadian law or CSD

And nothing that held weight in terms of appropriate administrative sanctions, I'm assuming from the story.

Unless there is a link to the 5019 series DAODs, or the Statement of Defence Ethics...

next

Or, if adultery is going to be determined to be "an offense" to any/all CAF members who commit it (not going to happen), then fine. Otherwise...

Again...I'm not condoning it. I'm married, on IR and don't cheat (I sleep easier at night knowing I'm only disappointing to a single woman...). But, I have a bit of a hard time taking criticism on adultery from anyone in the US; it's not like they're free of it, in their society or Armed Forces.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,658
Points
1,160
I think that is the wrong Coates? I have met the DM's hubby while at NORAD - and it isn't Capt(N) Coates...but I don't know if there is also a familial relation between Capt(N) Coates and LGen Coates as well, or not...
Right you are, MARS, I got Matt and Curtis crossed.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
373
Points
910
"The U.S. military has strict rules about fraternization and deems extramarital affairs a punishable offence. The Canadian Armed Forces does not outlaw affairs but considers relationships within the chain of command to be off-limits.

DND disputes the characterization of the relationship as "an affair," saying Coates — who is the brother-in-law of Canada's deputy defence minister — "was separated when he entered into a relationship with the individual in question."

Separated is a distinct status, different from "married" including in the CAF. No? If the American's don't agree with the distinction...personally, I couldn't really care less. I'm not an American, and they're not the boss of me.
 
Top