Contact me.

I finally have the ear of two law firms.

These law firms are very intrigued with the topic of child sexual abuse within the defence community.

Both of these law firms are looking for other victims.

Both of these law firms would like to speak to anyone, who as a military dependant, was sexually abused on a Defence Establishment within Canada, whether or not their abuser was subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and whose abuse was investigated by the base military police or the Canadian Forces Special Investigations Unit prior to 1998.

A Defence Establishment is bascially any property leased or owned by the Department of National Defence. This would include all PMQs on base, all PMQs off base like the Hilcrest Housing Development in Summerside, PEI or the LDH’s at CFB Downsview. These housing developments were on long term lease to the Department of National Defence and were therefore considered Defence Establishment property. Armouries are Defence Establishment property as well.

Because of the status of “Defence Establishment” the base military police or the CFSIU would have had jurisdiction to investigate all criminal matters and lay charges against persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

At this time, the matter is limited to pre-1998 issues due to very specific flaws in the National Defence Act which were well documented, publicized, acknowledged and “fixed” by Parliament by very specific legislation.

One of the primary asks will be that as part of any potential settlement, the Canadian Forces Military Police Group and the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service be barred by legislation from investigating ANY form of child sexual abuse which occurs on a Defenece Establishment whether or not the abuse was committed by a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline. The RCMP are the Federal police force of Canada and they already have concurrent jurisdiction with the CFNIS for all civilian matters on Defence Establishments. All it would take is an Act of Parliament to further amend the National Defence Act to set these boundaries in stone.

To contact me, I would urge you to do so via encrypted email.

I use Protonmail and ProtonVPN.

You can download Protonmail from

You can download ProtonVPN from

You don’t need ProtonVPN, but the extra security never hurts.

When you set up your Protonmail email account, do not use anything that could identify you.

When you create your Protonmail account, write down your username and password and keep it secure. The law firm(s) will make their initial contact with you via this secure email.

You don’t have to send ANY personal information at this time. Just a basic description of what happened, when it happened, and what province it happened in. Unfortunately, at this time, we can’t deal with matters that occured on Defence Establishments OUTSIDE of Canada.

If this action proceeds, you will be notified by the secure email. The lawyer(s) will then arrange to have their documents couriered to you, and your response will be picked up by prepaid courier.

You don’t have to use a secure email program to send a message to this address. But anything to protect your privacy is worth it.

The email address for the inital contact is:

Paste and copy the email address into your email program.

Just another posting

Just another posting. Nothing too serious.

The MPCC investigation into my complaint against the CFNIS is still ongoing. Unlike last time around, I was able to file an Access to Information request prior to making my final submission to the MPCC.

What this means is that unlike my previous complaint to the MPCC, I have all of the paperwork from the 2015 to 2018 portion of CFNIS investigation GO# 2011-5754.

This helped a lot as I was able to confirm what the CFNIS did and didn’t do in the second portion of the investigation into my complaint against P.S.

We still have to remember that the Provost Marshal holds all of the cards in a MPCC review.

I’ll admit that I was pretty naive the last time I made a complaint to the MPCC.

Dealing with the CFNIS in 2011 was really my first time ever having any dealings with any type of police agency. And during my dealings with the CFNIS I honestly had no idea of the historic issues facing the military police within the Canadian Forces. I also had absolutely no knowledge of the historical flaws in the National Defence Act. I just thought that it was so cool after having twice before been told that the military police couldn’t investigate P.S. because he was a military dependant that all of a sudden, here was the CFNIS ready and willing to investigate P.S.

But when Sgt. Cyr opened his mouth on May 3rd, 2011 and spilt the beans about the sordid details from back in 1980, I realized that the justice train had come off the rails before it even left the station.

I knew on November 4th, 2011 when PO Morris told me that the CFNIS couldn’t find any evidence to indicate that P.S. was capable of the crimes I had accused him of, that something had really gone wrong with the investigation.

The statement PO Morris made to me on November 4th, 2011 became all the more laughable in August of 2012 when I came across the Edmonton Journal article that detailed P.S.’s three criminal convictions for child sexual assault prior to September of 1985.

When RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban recommended that the CFNIS re-open the 2011 investigation and concentrate of four areas that he thought needed improvement I decided to keep detailed notes and records right from the word go.

All of these records and details were submitted to the MPCC.

So, we’ll have to sit back and see where this goes.

As I said at the start, I fully realize that the MPCC doesn’t have a lot of investigative powers during a review. The MPCC can’t subpoena documents or witnesses during a review. The MPCC can’t administer oaths during a review. The MPCC pretty well has to function with what the Provost Marshal gives to them.

I know the Provost Marshal has a very dim view of my request for a review of the CFNIS investigation. The Provost Marshal has already informed me that he considers my complaint to be baseless. The Provost Marshal has also stated that he considers the 2012 MPCC review to be sufficient and that he doesn’t believe that a second review of the same investigation needs to be undertaken. What the Provost Marshal is ignoring is that the 2011 portion of GO #2011-5754 is very distinctly different from the 2015 to 2018 portion of GO #2011-5754. The Provost Marshal even stated that he refused to review the video of my statement that I gave to RCMP Inspector Akrum Ghadban in September of 2015.

So, here’s hoping that things are different this time around.

One lesson that I did learn from my previous trip to Federal Court is that you can’t introduce “new evidence” into a hearing for judicial review. What is “new evidence”? New evidence is anything that wasn’t before the Military Police Complaints Commission during the review of a complaint against the military police.

And believe me, I am fully aware that not everything that was before the CFNIS manages to make it to the MPCC.