“ Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a military law expert, said it's clear the department wanted to keep the matter in-house where it will receive less public scrutiny than in an open court”
Or you know, DMP and MP policies stating that court martials shall have precedence outside of Sexual Assault, DUI, Murder, Manslaughter, Abduction, and Hostage Taking…
Court material are open for all to attend no differently then in civilian criminal court. I would argue they are more open given that you can access them by teams and the phone from anywhere in the world if you wanted.
They even give instructions on who to contact for access to the proceedings.
The only caution I would give with this case is it might not be fully open to the public. It very likely involves classified information, which means portions of the proceedings where classified information is being presented or discussed may not be made available to the public.
And even if some things have to go in-camera away from the public, it's because this case might have vulnerable national secrets, and it's not like it is something that a civilian criminal Court would expose either. And yes, I've dialed into plenty courts martial, you don't even have to be in the same freaking country to listen in.
The military also released a joint statement with the RCMP on this guy, which was immediately picked up by the news. There are lots of cases where the military abuses the system and keeps things in house, whether it be administratively or in the military justice system (or by ignoring it entirely), but this doesn't seem like it's one of those cases at all.
This case involves classified information that the accused and their lawyer can't disclose, and the lawyer might still be in the process of getting cleared to access.
I know Robar pretty well. We don't work together but have mutual friends and have hung out from time to time. I know his lifestyle and I'm familiar with his wife, her secure career, and the happy state of their marriage. As a DINK family he has little to no financial incentive to sell secrets.
And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn't have a disloyal fibre in his body.
He told me firsthand the broad strokes of this incident. I know the "foreign entity", and I have a decent - if incomplete - idea of what transpired to get to where a good troop like him gets fucked like this. It can very likely be summed up in two words: Deplorable leadership. His CoC almost certainly fucked up, and he's taking the fall. In the course of his duties he very likely did disclose something to someone that shouldn't have received it, but it was almost certainly with his CoC's foreknowledge and authorization. We'll see if anything written exists and is shown as evidence to corroborate this.
The point is he did not gain nor was promised ANYTHING from this disclosure. Why his CoC has decided to go nuclear on him - including an insane malingering charge - when the RCMP won't is the big mystery.
This man does not deserve this, and I'm writing this down because I would hope that someone would do the same for me if I'm ever in the crosshairs of similar almost certainly vindictive leadership.
This article is basicly just his lawyer saying “we don’t know what he is accused of” something EXTREMELY unlikely given the charge sheet and pre arrest items would have explained everything he’s being accused of
Also very funny that the lawyer thinks it’s an escalation of administrative actions. Administrative actions run separate from the military justice system. You can be a shit pump at your job and get put on C&P AND also face charges for something you did in relation to being said shit pup. It’s not a scale of escilation.
It was not a direct quote; so it may have been explained properly; but the journalist put them together; or was explained in a way to make the journalist come to that conclusion.
Agreed it COULD be either one... but i don't see Fowler being in a rush to correct their misinterpretation.
I have read how Fowler feels about remedial measures and I disagree with him. He's looking at them like a lawyer and they're fundamentally not a legal issue.
Yeah seems like he doesn’t because he said that he things the charges are an esculation of the administrative action something that isn’t even possible because administrative actions and military justice system are two completely different things. One doesn’t lead to the other.
I'd imagine the charge sheet only includes unclassified information, but the case probably involves classified information. I'm guessing the lawyer might not have been cleared to access those details yet.
Of course, they're probably a slimy piece of shit who is going to misrepresent that fact as something nefarious instead of just admitting there are classified details they're still in the process of being cleared to access.
Nah, that's LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler, he used to be Defence Counsel Services and before that he was an infantry officer. His private practice is representing military members. Basically anyone charged in a high profile case (think Adm Art MacDonald, MGen Dany Fortin etc) retains this guy, but he represents anyone at any rank and helps people charged under MJUL as well. He also has a blog where he writes about issues in the military justice system, including a tendency by chains of command to be super shady about the line between admin and disciplinary action, highly recommended reading though it's quite dry.
Of course he's acting as a lawyer so he's gonna say things that benefit his client. But I'm not at all surprised that the military hasn't done disclosure properly here.
The charge sheet almost certainly reads like every other charge sheet "that on or about (such-and-such date), the member did (wording of the offence charged)".
I can't speak to pre-arrest items, but charge sheets with no specifics is par for the course of what I've seen.
I don’t buy the assertion from the dude ex lawyer that he doesn’t know why he’s being charged. If NIS and the RCMP are involved clearly they have spoken to him after arrest and laid out a portion of what they have on him.
Oh, for sure. But that doesn't equate to him being officially, properly notified of the charges against him.
I've no idea how much of this is lawyer PR spin and how much of it is opacity in the process, but I don't find it hard to believe that - given the nature of the charges and that the accused lost his security clearance some time ago - he's yet to receive proper disclosure.
It actually sounds like some interpersonal issues at the workplace and trying to burn an MWO (from this article anyways) but those are some hefty charges to want to try through the military “justice” system, instead of open court
It sounds like that because the entire article is just an interview with his former lawyer
Military trials are open, no different then civilian court, I would argue they are even more open in that anyone can listen in from anywhere in the world
I think you read the article and are believing everything is true based on what his old lawyer said who isn’t probably that familiar with the actual charges
Again the entire article is just the former lawyer talking to the media about his client, and I highly doubt that dude was handed a sheet of paper to sign with nothing on it and the words “you know what you did” were the only things uttered.
It seems clear this case involves classified information. How much of that do you really expect them to make public?
Also, it is pretty commonplace for the accused and their lawyer to make statements that aren't necessarily untrue, but are incomplete or misleading in hopes of shaping public opinion. The prosecution isn't innocent of this, but I find the defence is usually worse.
Of course Michel Drapeau has to comment about MJS... what this article doesn't acknowledge is that the RCMP were involved as well. I imagine a number of conversations between agencies, crown, and RMP would of happened before charges were laid. Particularly SOIA. Wonder if the initial disciplinary would of dug up the criminal?
Recruit screening isn't the issue in this case... The guy has been in for 24 years.
That said, we should be continually screening people throughout their careers to ensure they're still sound of mind and not exhibiting toxic behaviours or subscribing to subversive influences.
Whoever is in charge of this needs to get their ass in gear. If this is serious they can't be screwing around like this, and refuse to tell them what they're being charged with. These are the kinds of Rights violations that end up getting charged like this vacated.
And if this charge is full of it, then I hope it's over before CAF makes too much of a clown of itself
You are assuming that the article is actually correct and that what his former lawyer is saying is true. The charge sheet lists the 5Ws for his charges. It’s literally part of the document, you can’t charge or arrest someone without telling them why. You don’t need to lay out a fully flushed out detailed case with all the evidence. But as someone who has been charged I can tell you that the shit they put in front of you fully explains what your accused of and for why
Yes, exactly. The defense gets full disclosure on the prosecution's case against him. They know who their witnesses will be, they know what the witness statements to police look like, and they will have seen all of the documentary and physical evidence against him. An accused member gets full answer and defense at court martial, just like they would in a civilian criminal court trial, which means they do get told the nature of their charges prior to trial.
It's not common but it's still far from the first time that a court martial has involved classified information. It's a slightly different process that can disinclude the public at points, but it does not disinclude the accused person, because that would be a breach of their charter rights (to a fair trial).
A: he absolutely knows what he did in this case.
B: this article is theater with his lawyer trying to win public opinion. Don't fall for that. Wait and see what actually comes of the case.
C: for real though - he knows what he did. This isn't new. He's known what was being investigated for over a year.
Wow this article if full of people that knows nothing about how things work.
The interresting part tot me:
In the spring of 2025, Robar's security clearance was not renewed.
He filed an internal grievance, a copy of which has been obtained by CBC News
Security clearances are not handled by the military. I don't know what he hoped to achieve with his grievance. It's also the proof that whatever he did, was not only "Administrative". Now CBC claims to have the grievance, but they didnt share the content...
You're incorrect here. Granting of security clearance have more than one component. Don't know details from this but it seems most likely that whatever he was accused of doing was serious enough that while he was under investigation they removed his security clearance and/or blocked his renewal. That happens at DGDS level, and is absolutely something he could attempt to grieve. He could try to argue that he hasn't been found guilty of any crime yet and that the removal of his security clearance is not justified.
He would be 100% incorrect unless he could prove everyone is just out to get him. Security clearance is a privilege not a right.
You don’t need to be guilty of a crime to have your clearance revoked. You could have 100,000 in dept in collections or have a family member who’s married to some foreign official and that could be enough to have your clearance restricted.
But, if the RCMP and NIS are investigating you for possible espionage they may very well revoke your clearance to prevent you from having access to information, filing a grievance ridiculous.
This article does exactly what the accused former lawyer intended to do, cast doubt and muddy the water of what actually happened. It’s a puff piece in my eyes.
Your clearance doesn't get "revoked" for these things. You may not get your clearance at renewal for these reasons, but it isn't revoked.
What you're describing is a CCR or a change of circumstance report. That is not a revocation of the clearance. It's a document that lets the various levels know a change has happened, it needs to be watched etc. The members CO then decides to what level they will restrict the members duties/access.
Depends on the situation, CO can revoke clearance on a CCR. It’s on the form. Members don’t even need to know their CoC have submitted a CCR (unless clearance revoked).
CO can't revoke the clearance. Only DGDS can. The CO can deny the member access to the info - but their actual clearance within the system will remain on file until/unless DGDS revokes it.
That's what the CCR is for. To inform DGDS what's going on so they can determine if the member should still hold the clearance.
The granting of security clearances is decided by leadership within the CAF. CSIS completes the security assessments but they are not the ones who sign off on the granting of clearances. When it comes to grievances, it is the decision of an authority that is reviewable. They're not grieving the content of the assessment completed by CSIS, including their recommendations, but the decision not to renew their security clearance itself.
"The Federal Accountability Act gives departments and agencies the exclusive responsibility to initiate, grant, deny, revoke or suspend security clearances or site access clearances. A CSIS security assessment is only one element of the security screening process undertaken by a department or agency."
“ Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a military law expert, said it's clear the department wanted to keep the matter in-house where it will receive less public scrutiny than in an open court”
Or you know, DMP and MP policies stating that court martials shall have precedence outside of Sexual Assault, DUI, Murder, Manslaughter, Abduction, and Hostage Taking…
Court material are open for all to attend no differently then in civilian criminal court. I would argue they are more open given that you can access them by teams and the phone from anywhere in the world if you wanted.
How does one find this? I tried googling and don’t think I know what I’m looking for.
https://www.canada.ca/en/chief-military-judge.html
They even give instructions on who to contact for access to the proceedings.
The only caution I would give with this case is it might not be fully open to the public. It very likely involves classified information, which means portions of the proceedings where classified information is being presented or discussed may not be made available to the public.
Thank you!
And even if some things have to go in-camera away from the public, it's because this case might have vulnerable national secrets, and it's not like it is something that a civilian criminal Court would expose either. And yes, I've dialed into plenty courts martial, you don't even have to be in the same freaking country to listen in.
The military also released a joint statement with the RCMP on this guy, which was immediately picked up by the news. There are lots of cases where the military abuses the system and keeps things in house, whether it be administratively or in the military justice system (or by ignoring it entirely), but this doesn't seem like it's one of those cases at all.
So reading between the lines...
This case involves classified information that the accused and their lawyer can't disclose, and the lawyer might still be in the process of getting cleared to access.
A sack of shit
Throwaway account, so buckle up chucklefucks.
I know Robar pretty well. We don't work together but have mutual friends and have hung out from time to time. I know his lifestyle and I'm familiar with his wife, her secure career, and the happy state of their marriage. As a DINK family he has little to no financial incentive to sell secrets.
And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn't have a disloyal fibre in his body.
He told me firsthand the broad strokes of this incident. I know the "foreign entity", and I have a decent - if incomplete - idea of what transpired to get to where a good troop like him gets fucked like this. It can very likely be summed up in two words: Deplorable leadership. His CoC almost certainly fucked up, and he's taking the fall. In the course of his duties he very likely did disclose something to someone that shouldn't have received it, but it was almost certainly with his CoC's foreknowledge and authorization. We'll see if anything written exists and is shown as evidence to corroborate this.
The point is he did not gain nor was promised ANYTHING from this disclosure. Why his CoC has decided to go nuclear on him - including an insane malingering charge - when the RCMP won't is the big mystery.
This man does not deserve this, and I'm writing this down because I would hope that someone would do the same for me if I'm ever in the crosshairs of similar almost certainly vindictive leadership.
We got a pot goin' at work for the official entity reveal.
I just wanna know what the malingering charge is about. I bet he called in sick so he could meet his foreign contact or something
Maybe claimed PTSD when he got caught
This article is basicly just his lawyer saying “we don’t know what he is accused of” something EXTREMELY unlikely given the charge sheet and pre arrest items would have explained everything he’s being accused of
Also very funny that the lawyer thinks it’s an escalation of administrative actions. Administrative actions run separate from the military justice system. You can be a shit pump at your job and get put on C&P AND also face charges for something you did in relation to being said shit pup. It’s not a scale of escilation.
The lawyer in this case (LCol [Ret'd] Fowler, former DCS) understands the difference between admin and disciplinary action better than pretty much anyone else; here's some of his writings on the subject where he discusses his thoughts on the subject: https://roryfowlerlaw.com/judgments-as-remedial-measures-what-we-can-learn-from-recent-developments/
And the lawyer in this case OFTEN uses that knowledge to manipulate public opinion, exploiting the fact that they don't really know the difference.
It was not a direct quote; so it may have been explained properly; but the journalist put them together; or was explained in a way to make the journalist come to that conclusion.
Agreed it COULD be either one... but i don't see Fowler being in a rush to correct their misinterpretation.
I have read how Fowler feels about remedial measures and I disagree with him. He's looking at them like a lawyer and they're fundamentally not a legal issue.
Yeah seems like he doesn’t because he said that he things the charges are an esculation of the administrative action something that isn’t even possible because administrative actions and military justice system are two completely different things. One doesn’t lead to the other.
I'd imagine the charge sheet only includes unclassified information, but the case probably involves classified information. I'm guessing the lawyer might not have been cleared to access those details yet.
Of course, they're probably a slimy piece of shit who is going to misrepresent that fact as something nefarious instead of just admitting there are classified details they're still in the process of being cleared to access.
Nah, that's LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler, he used to be Defence Counsel Services and before that he was an infantry officer. His private practice is representing military members. Basically anyone charged in a high profile case (think Adm Art MacDonald, MGen Dany Fortin etc) retains this guy, but he represents anyone at any rank and helps people charged under MJUL as well. He also has a blog where he writes about issues in the military justice system, including a tendency by chains of command to be super shady about the line between admin and disciplinary action, highly recommended reading though it's quite dry.
Of course he's acting as a lawyer so he's gonna say things that benefit his client. But I'm not at all surprised that the military hasn't done disclosure properly here.
It’s not even the lawyer who’s representing him. It’s a former lawyer he hired..
The charge sheet almost certainly reads like every other charge sheet "that on or about (such-and-such date), the member did (wording of the offence charged)".
I can't speak to pre-arrest items, but charge sheets with no specifics is par for the course of what I've seen.
I don’t buy the assertion from the dude ex lawyer that he doesn’t know why he’s being charged. If NIS and the RCMP are involved clearly they have spoken to him after arrest and laid out a portion of what they have on him.
Oh, for sure. But that doesn't equate to him being officially, properly notified of the charges against him.
I've no idea how much of this is lawyer PR spin and how much of it is opacity in the process, but I don't find it hard to believe that - given the nature of the charges and that the accused lost his security clearance some time ago - he's yet to receive proper disclosure.
Except, the article doesn’t explain it🤔
It actually sounds like some interpersonal issues at the workplace and trying to burn an MWO (from this article anyways) but those are some hefty charges to want to try through the military “justice” system, instead of open court
It sounds like that because the entire article is just an interview with his former lawyer
Military trials are open, no different then civilian court, I would argue they are even more open in that anyone can listen in from anywhere in the world
I think you read the article and are believing everything is true based on what his old lawyer said who isn’t probably that familiar with the actual charges
[deleted]
Again the entire article is just the former lawyer talking to the media about his client, and I highly doubt that dude was handed a sheet of paper to sign with nothing on it and the words “you know what you did” were the only things uttered.
This is effectively a puff piece for the accused
It seems clear this case involves classified information. How much of that do you really expect them to make public?
Also, it is pretty commonplace for the accused and their lawyer to make statements that aren't necessarily untrue, but are incomplete or misleading in hopes of shaping public opinion. The prosecution isn't innocent of this, but I find the defence is usually worse.
Of course Michel Drapeau has to comment about MJS... what this article doesn't acknowledge is that the RCMP were involved as well. I imagine a number of conversations between agencies, crown, and RMP would of happened before charges were laid. Particularly SOIA. Wonder if the initial disciplinary would of dug up the criminal?
There needs to be better screening. Too many people that shouldn’t be in the CAF but are
Recruit screening isn't the issue in this case... The guy has been in for 24 years.
That said, we should be continually screening people throughout their careers to ensure they're still sound of mind and not exhibiting toxic behaviours or subscribing to subversive influences.
We do, every 5 years.
This exactly and was what I was getting at but it’s early and I’m on mobile lol.
I don’t know what that looks like but it for sure needs to happen. There too many disgruntled, toxic people.
I anonymously report people who have questionable social media posts. They do investigate as I’ve had replies from whoever runs the CAF Facebook page.
Whoever is in charge of this needs to get their ass in gear. If this is serious they can't be screwing around like this, and refuse to tell them what they're being charged with. These are the kinds of Rights violations that end up getting charged like this vacated.
And if this charge is full of it, then I hope it's over before CAF makes too much of a clown of itself
You are assuming that the article is actually correct and that what his former lawyer is saying is true. The charge sheet lists the 5Ws for his charges. It’s literally part of the document, you can’t charge or arrest someone without telling them why. You don’t need to lay out a fully flushed out detailed case with all the evidence. But as someone who has been charged I can tell you that the shit they put in front of you fully explains what your accused of and for why
Yes, exactly. The defense gets full disclosure on the prosecution's case against him. They know who their witnesses will be, they know what the witness statements to police look like, and they will have seen all of the documentary and physical evidence against him. An accused member gets full answer and defense at court martial, just like they would in a civilian criminal court trial, which means they do get told the nature of their charges prior to trial.
It's not common but it's still far from the first time that a court martial has involved classified information. It's a slightly different process that can disinclude the public at points, but it does not disinclude the accused person, because that would be a breach of their charter rights (to a fair trial).
A: he absolutely knows what he did in this case. B: this article is theater with his lawyer trying to win public opinion. Don't fall for that. Wait and see what actually comes of the case. C: for real though - he knows what he did. This isn't new. He's known what was being investigated for over a year.
Wow this article if full of people that knows nothing about how things work.
The interresting part tot me:
Security clearances are not handled by the military. I don't know what he hoped to achieve with his grievance. It's also the proof that whatever he did, was not only "Administrative". Now CBC claims to have the grievance, but they didnt share the content...
You're incorrect here. Granting of security clearance have more than one component. Don't know details from this but it seems most likely that whatever he was accused of doing was serious enough that while he was under investigation they removed his security clearance and/or blocked his renewal. That happens at DGDS level, and is absolutely something he could attempt to grieve. He could try to argue that he hasn't been found guilty of any crime yet and that the removal of his security clearance is not justified.
He would be 100% incorrect unless he could prove everyone is just out to get him. Security clearance is a privilege not a right.
You don’t need to be guilty of a crime to have your clearance revoked. You could have 100,000 in dept in collections or have a family member who’s married to some foreign official and that could be enough to have your clearance restricted.
But, if the RCMP and NIS are investigating you for possible espionage they may very well revoke your clearance to prevent you from having access to information, filing a grievance ridiculous.
This article does exactly what the accused former lawyer intended to do, cast doubt and muddy the water of what actually happened. It’s a puff piece in my eyes.
Your clearance doesn't get "revoked" for these things. You may not get your clearance at renewal for these reasons, but it isn't revoked.
What you're describing is a CCR or a change of circumstance report. That is not a revocation of the clearance. It's a document that lets the various levels know a change has happened, it needs to be watched etc. The members CO then decides to what level they will restrict the members duties/access.
Depends on the situation, CO can revoke clearance on a CCR. It’s on the form. Members don’t even need to know their CoC have submitted a CCR (unless clearance revoked).
CO can't revoke the clearance. Only DGDS can. The CO can deny the member access to the info - but their actual clearance within the system will remain on file until/unless DGDS revokes it.
That's what the CCR is for. To inform DGDS what's going on so they can determine if the member should still hold the clearance.
De-indoctrination
100% agreed.
The granting of security clearances is decided by leadership within the CAF. CSIS completes the security assessments but they are not the ones who sign off on the granting of clearances. When it comes to grievances, it is the decision of an authority that is reviewable. They're not grieving the content of the assessment completed by CSIS, including their recommendations, but the decision not to renew their security clearance itself.
"The Federal Accountability Act gives departments and agencies the exclusive responsibility to initiate, grant, deny, revoke or suspend security clearances or site access clearances. A CSIS security assessment is only one element of the security screening process undertaken by a department or agency."
https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/services/government-security-screening.html
[deleted]
[deleted]