- Reaction score
I'm with you on what can constitute obstruct. So what was obstructed exactly in this case? Agree, we'll need to wait and see what details emerge but on it's face this seems weak as hell.Was an investigation being conducted to determine if offences may have been committed under the National Defense Act Code of Service Discipline? Crim Code obstruction doesn’t have to rely on a criminal predicate offence. You can go Crim Code obstruction for someone giving you a fake name at a traffic stop. The elements of the offence of obstruction allow for numerous different fact sets.
Clearly there was at least enough information available for someone to feel comfortable laying a charge and for crown to b going with it. Might be we need to wait to see how this plays out.
Where I'm at a loss is where the CDS's conduct contravened a NDA disciplinary offence that would necessitate an investigation.
He had a personal relationship, for years. Clearly the CAF allows relationships or there would not be such a thing as "service couples". There is even a DAOD on the topic and this circumstance doesn't seem to even meet the definition of "adverse personal relationship".
I've never ever heard of anyone in the CAF being under investigation for disciplinary offences stemming from a consensual relationship. Once it was determined there was no sex assault, IMHO this was over. But let's see what happens I guess.