# 2024-276 Careers, Judge Arbour Rec. 10 – sexual-related files

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-22

After the military police made a complaint against the grievor, his chaplain mandate for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was temporarily revoked. In addition, the grievor received a recorded warning (RW) for conduct deficiencies. These can be described as follows: he allegedly acted against the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Code of Values and Ethics and the CAF Royal Canadian Chaplain Service Manual Statement of Ethics for CAF Chaplains. The grievor contested the RW, saying that the alleged facts did not occur in connection with the duties of his mandate. He also said that, since the charges against him were withdrawn, the RW was issued without reason. The grievor asked for the RW to be removed from his file (File 2024-336). He said having his mandate revoked was arbitrary and punitive, rather than preventive (File 2024-253). Finally, the grievor contested the continued revocation of his mandate and requested several measures as redress, including having his mandate reinstated (File 2024-276).

In the first file, the Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance and found that the grievor had filed his grievance outside the prescribed time limit. In the other two cases, the IA did not make a decision because it did not have the power to grant the requested redress, namely, the reinstatement of the chaplain mandate.

After review, the Committee found that, considering the grievor's admitted behaviour, the administration of an RW was justified. Considering similar previous incidents, the Committee also found that, in the circumstances, the revocation of the chaplain mandate was reasonable. Finally, since new allegations later surfaced and the grievor no longer had the ecclesiastic endorsement of his religious denomination, the continued revocation of his chaplain mandate was reasonable; it was no longer possible to support the grievor's mandate to carry out his duties in the CAF, in the circumstances.

Therefore, the Committee said that the grievor had not been aggrieved, and recommended that the Final Authority not grant redress to the grievor.