Brig.-Gen. faces court martial over tryst allegations

News Sections

News Programs

CTV National News with Lisa LaFlamme

Canada AM

Power Play

Question Period

Features

Autos

Consumer

Browse:

Video

Galleries

MyNews

Brig.-Gen. faces court martial over tryst allegations

Canada's former top soldier in Kandahar, Brigadier-General Daniel Menard speaks with the media as Lt-Colonel Troy Sweet looks on in Gatineau, Que., Tuesday, May 25, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (47) Tweet

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tuesday Nov. 23, 2010 11:35 AM ET

The former commander of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard, will face a court martial in relation to allegations he had an in-theatre intimate relationship with a member of his staff, the Department of National Defence announced Tuesday.

Allegations of a sexual affair first surfaced in May 2010 when Menard, a 26-year army veteran, was the Task Force Commander in Afghanistan.

The military police initiated an investigation after Menard's female subordinate, Master-Cpl. Bianka Langlois, said she had an affair with the married father of two. He was removed from his post in June and ordered home in disgrace.

In July, Menard was charged with two counts of prejudice of good order and discipline in relation to alleged inappropriate conduct under fraternization rules; and four counts of obstructing justice.

Military regulations prohibit soldiers, even married couples, from having intimate relations on deployment.

In its statement on Tuesday, the DND said the "Court Martial Administrator will convene the Court Martial at the first available date and at a location to be determined."

Langlois was also charged with a single charge of prejudice of good order and discipline in relation to the alleged inappropriate conduct, but there has been no announcement yet on whether the military intends to proceed with a court martial.

Brig-Gen. Jonathan Vance took over as commander of Task Force Kandahar after Menard was dismissed in May. The current commander is Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner, who took command from Vance at a handover ceremony at Kandahar Airfield in early September.

This is the second court martial that Menard has faced this year.

In March, Menard's assault rifle accidentally shot off two rounds as he was preparing to board a helicopter in Kandahar. No one was injured in the incident.

Menard handed over his weapon for inspection and it was found that there was no mechanical problem with the gun.

Menard admitted to troops that he was responsible and at his court martial, he pleaded guilty to one count of "neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline" under the National Defence Act. He was also ordered to pay a $3,500 fine for his neglect.

Comments are now closed for this story

Paul ~ Kitchener
said

This will be blown up in the media like it was Monumental news ! The only news needed is to state the charge and leave it at that. The Military have "Rules & Laws" & a justice system, (Court Martials), to govern themselves as a seperate entity. This officer has broken the code of miltary conduct (regardless of rank or station) & must stand to answer the call of the court martial. Regardless of all who break the rules, and get away with it, doesn't make this any less an infraction, & must be addressed by the rules and orders of the day. This officer brings the disgrace on his family, the Military, the Defence Department, and upon himself. All this for a few minutes of sex ~ Let Justice be done !. God Bless Canada, and all who serve faithfully, within the laws of military service.

Former CSM
said

Someone should also instruct him on the proper way to wear a beret. This is not the French Foreign Legion. The hat badge is to be in line with the left eye. As well there is no such thing has an accidental discharge in the CF; these are called negligent discharge and the usual fine is one month's pay. Let's call a spade a spade.

Retired Warrent Officer
said

@ harlo, if you spent that much time in the military then you of all people should know why he has to be charged and tried. From your post it really makes me wonder if you ever served in the Canadian military. Yes, he did wrong and knew better so now he will have to pay the piper.

Mike in Ontario
said

@ Lance, as a senior officer he has to be court martial. When senior officers are charged with an offence then it is automatic for him/her to be tried by court martial where junior ranks can be tried by their Command Officer. Now having said that the junior ranks can refuse to be tried by the Command Office and request a court martial instead where they can have a lawyer represent them. For this offence he must be tried or the troops will lose all respect for senior officers and feel they are protecting their own.

Vicky Trudeau
said

A big deal about nothing. Adults making adult decisions.

Old Ted
said

Unlike the general public in Canada, our armed forces still hold themselves to a higher standard at home and in the field. Someone has to set an example and a standard for us to aspire to. It sure beats heading into the gutter as our society seems to be so willing to doing.

Retired Captain
said

This man is a disgrace to the CF. Whether or not you agree with the policy about no fraternization or not, the policy is in place. He was meant to enforce the policy and he would have had no problem charging a subordinate for disobeying the policy. A person of his rank should obey the rules or have them changed, not simply choose to disobey them. He should be demoted and lose his 100% pension that Generals get.

The other Lynn
said

He knew the rules. He broke them. Then he obstructed justice. Typical defensive behavior when sexual boundaries are crossed, except he actually lived in an environment that has rules and consequences for breaking them. Discharge is fully justified. I am so sorry for the pain and loss of trust that his wife and children are going through; the impact of his failure upon his family has ongoing ramifications. He is definitely not trustworthy military leadership material anymore.

W
said

Look, I am in the army and have deployed over seas. It's very simple. The commander should not be banging his troops. Similarly, its not about two consenting adults, its about focusing on your job while deployed. Why should those in the rear be allowed to participate in office romances (and their possible reprecussions i.e bad break ups) while the battle group is conducting operations. Sex may be a basic need but that need can be tended to on leave. Lets shift focus from Gen Menard to MCpl Langois. Lets say that she was given a wonderful write up and promoted. Everyone would attribute it to her romantic relationship with the general. For those who say what goes on in the bedroom should stay there, I agree. But it should be in your bedroom back in Canada.

Michael
said

There are good reasons for this rule. People do stupid things when sex becomes more important than their responsibilities.

2 cents
said

As a lifetime member of the CF, these frat rules are outdated, and need to be changed. But this officer is under the old rules... so if it is good for the enlisted men...

Brad B
said

First of all, if this court martial ruins his life, then I'm sorry, but that's too bad. He's a General, and knew the risk he was taking. If he cannot be trusted to make a decision about fraternization with a Junior Rank, let alone being faithful to his wife, what about other decisions we are asking him to make under pressure?And Doug, regarding the fine for the negligent discharge, there's a very good reason for that. Soldiers are often fined up to $1000 for a negligent discharge of a BLANK. Why? Because when it happens, people die. Ask Cpl. Matthew Wilcox, who is serving 4 years for shooting his teammate.

Bob in Ontario former solider
said

@ hrlow, you asked why should the general be court martialed for it. this is a personal matter. No my friend it is not a personal matter. The military has laws and rules that MUST be followed by all ranks. Remember this is a comabt zone not some port of call for a navy ship where the boys get a night on the town before heading out to sea again. The rule in this case is no sex so that is why it matters and that is why he has to be charged. If the military did not charge him what type of example are they setting for the troops. O, I don't like the rule that we can not drink while we are on patrol so I am going to take my bottle with me. Would you want to be on patrol with that guy? Rules are there for everyone even though you may not like them you have to obey them no matter who you are or what rank you are.

Gaston
said

Throw the book at him. Under QR&O this is a serious offence. When your are in the armed forces you are warned of the consequencies. I have spent 23 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is a high ranking officer and he is suppose to show an example to his subordinates. On; top of that he tried to jeopardize the investigation. If it was a lower rank they would throw him out. Equal justice for all.

Lance
said

good military order and dicipline - they are both at fault and should be dealt with according to the rule of military law having said that ; a courts marshall should be dealing with serious issues of military law I think that this is minor give a fine to both of them and get them back to work it is counter productive to ruin both of their lives for what I believe was a simple release of tension !

Mike from Petawawa
said

@ Phil from Toronto, how do you think the soldiers in over in Afghanistan feel when they find out their commander is not following the orders that are laid out but they have to follow them. Also keep in mind that there have been husbands and wives deployed at the same time in the same camp and they can not have any sexual relations while deployed. No if a married couple got caught sleeping together over there they would face charges then so should the commander who should be setting the example for his troops to follow.

Tori
said

How pathetic.Basically, he should have known better.She gets a slap on the wrist or pat on the back depending on if the General was well liked or not.He could lose his career, is known as an adulteror and poor leader who showed lack of judgement.I realize what General Menard has done is seen as a grave error in judgement, one which could be construde in so many different directions. Let's face it though, he made a humanly possible mistake. He fooled around on his wife. He broke the laws of God and for that he will be punished.Dragging his name through the media, to sensationalize how much of a problem fraternization is just makes things sound grander than they are.The Cpl should have remained quiet. I guess bragging rights were worth more than his career.

Jimmy
said

I love the chirping on this board......She was a Master Corporal....not a Junior Officer for 1.2) They are human beings, in a VERY stressful situation. Its a WAR zone. I have friends come back from tours of duty and they are MESSED up.3) Was he sleeping with her in front of people? NO. Was it behind closed doors?Probably4) As for adultery.....Puh-leeze. Perhaps he is NOT in a good marriage, its an open marriage etc."Let he without sin cast the first stone"This is 2010, divorce rate is over 50%, adultery is prevalent.....Get over it.

Jeff
said

It may seem innocuous to all you liberal minded types that think a little fling is not worth the charges against the general - but then again you probably don't have any problem with having an extra-marital fling yourself. But that is not the point - the issue is leadership and the responsibility and accountability of command. Non-fraternization rules are there for a reason - to prevent the potential added complications that relationships or flings can have in the already difficult situation of a combat theatre of war. In the military, rules and regulations are there for the maintenance of discipline - plain and simple. Without that you cannot have an effective fighting force or team. Unlike the civilian armchair experts, in the military, leadership is by example. The general was an bad example on two occaisions. Leadership by bad example is not acceptable. He's a big boy, he knew the rules; now he has to stand up and take his medicine like a man. To the parents reading this blog, we teach "natural consequence" to our children. Break the rules and you get punished. How very fundamental to our democratic society.

Lance Usher Capt (ret'd)
said

Hmmmm a BGen gets two court martials... Wonder if he was promoted based on his language ability, certainly was not based on leadership... Good to see the double standard for Senior Officers vice the rest of the military has not changed...

Will
said

This is a disciplinary matter and anyone who sees nothing wrong with this "relationship" is out to lunch. Consider this: how would you be reacting if she was to complain that his relative power over her left her with no choice but to "put out"? That would be the definition of rape. As it is, the CF has regulations governing persons in the same chain of command and rank disparities for a reason. If you aren't willing to follow the rules, just what do you think you are doing in a uniform!

schpid
said

And once again, it's the male side of the mutual relationship that will wear the full brunt of the consequences. Not standing up for him at all but the charges for fraternization and misconduct should be even across the board. The obstruction charges, to me, are the most serious ones being alleged against a superior commander.

Greg from Kentville NS
said

It never ceases to amaze me that the average Canadian civilian has absolutely no concept or understanding of how our military operates. I think two issues are of critical importance in judging the behaviors of those involved. Firstly, a commander in the field has a primary responsibility for the welfare and safety of his troops, balanced by the "exigencies" of the service. Simply put, he/she should be far too busy to have time for "affairs".
Secondly, any relationship between commanders and subordinates has an element of abuse of authority inherent in iy and therefore cannot be truly consensual. To restate the obvious, the Canadian Forces are operating in a war zone in Afghanistan. What's perfectly OK for the average civilian in downtown TO is not acceptable for our troops in theatre. But that's OK too, after all isn't that part of the reason why soldiers fight? To uphold the freedoms their fellow citizens enjoy. To those who scoff at "Victorian" concepts of duty and honour, ask yourself that, if even if you were so inclined, would you have the wherewithal to follow in their footsteps? I think not!

Lynn
said

This is ridiculous. I believe in the sanctity of marriage but this is a private matter that should not be dealt with in the media, or by the Government- any more than our employers should deal with it if it was any one else who had an affair. I realize rules and policies need to be respected... but come on....

Donaldbain
said

What do people expect when we have a co-ed military? Having served 10 years myself, I saw the navy turn into club med. The last ship I served on was known as the "Love Boat" because of all the nookie going on. It culminated with the ships XO (second in command) being caught in his cabin by the Captain with a young lady that was certainly not his wife. It was a perfect ending to his career when you consider the "no fraternization" speech he gave everyone when they joined the ship. Do as I say, not as I do, is the mantra of the bloated officer corps and like anywhere else there are good people following the rules and those who think the rules don't apply to them.

Janet
said

If a person of this rank, in charge of troops in a war zone, cannot control himself, regardless of the circumstances, he has no business being trusted with the high rank that he has. It is his job as commander to set an example for his troops, whether or not he agrees with the rules. He showed flagrant disregard for the rules of the military, and as such acted totally inappropriately. His dismissal is totally warranted.

spaz
said

Let me see if I get the picture straight......Our soldiers are in a foreign country....being shot at....roadside bombs....suicide bombers....rocket propelled granades......and the guy can not even have intimate relations with a fully consenting female.....from Canada in the privacy of.....get this.....A TENT ???Only the two consenting adults witnessed this....no public display of nudity.....no "snapping of a bra stap" in the mess tent.....who cares......sorry.....his wife cares.....the resulting divorce will more than suficient for punishment.It is not like he used a Canadian Forces helicopter to fly to a brother in another country.....

Gregory Boudreau
said

This is good to see, a high ranking officer having to answer for his conduct. I am a former soldier myself, and they always made us answer for our conduct. It is good to see a General have to answer for his conduct, the only thing that is sad is there are family members who will have to also go through this ordeal.

Niagara George
said

As I am typing this, I see your Guidelines about What to do: and What not to do:. It clearly states, "Comments written entirely in capital letters... will not be posted." It's no wonder the Brig.-Gen. didn't follow the rules. He probably knew that randy in chatham didn't have to, so why should he!

Brent
said

It's too bad that Canadian public justice isn't as harsh as Military justice.

Dora
said

I expect our Canadian military superiors to protect me and our country..not parade around like skank hounds in heat having office sex!

harlo
said

having been in the army 28 years , i can tell you that quit a few affairs have taken place. my brother tells me that the navy was even worse . these affairs occur in all walks of life, so why should the general be court martialed for it. this is a personal matter .

Kim
said

Serious?? Our priorities are so messed up in this Country.

Amanda
said

As a military member I would like to stress the importance of not viewing this issue by only the specific crime (fraternization) that was committed but by the fact that it IS indeed a crime under military law. If you wish to debate what should and should not be a military crime its too late for THIS case, so don't bother going there. Nothing changes the fact that we as military members are not to be committing acts of fraternization in theatre, which is why his subordinate was also charged with the same basic crime. A Commander is supposed to set the example and as the most high profile and conspicuous person on base, it would be nearly impossible for him to hide an affair; he would have known that but obviously proceeded anyway. My husband and I have both been in theatre, been away on temporary duty or on course to another base/city and there is ALWAYS fraternization taking place... and it rarely ever goes unnoticed, even if its a one-time thing.

Doug in Alberta
said

What a waste of time. a court martial for an affair, get real. I also find a 3500 dollar fine also rediculous. We have criminals running around on our streets who fire off stolen handguns and when have you ever seen in the papers where a judge has fined the criminal any amount? I agree there needs to be strict conduct in the field but what the army is protraying is a gong show with these types of court martials. If the Talliban have to be treated by the way of our constitution, then I say let civilian courts hear these charges to make it fair. Laws in this country are for everyone and just because you are in the army, you shouldnt be held accountable under 2 separate laws.

randy in chatham
said

I STANDING UP FOR THE GENERAL HERE, WHAT GOES ON IN THE BEDROOM IS THIER BUSINESS. ITS NOT ENOUGH THAT THESE SOLIDERS PUT THIER LIVES AT RISK, BUT COURT MARTIAL FOR THIS. I KNOW THEIR ARE RULES BUT COME A GENERAL, SO HE HAD A LITTLE SIDE ACTION. WHO CAN THROW THE FIRST STONE WHO HAS SIN NOT. DONT RUIN A MANS LIFE FOR LOVE, A QUICKIE WHATEVER, I'M ASHAMED OF OUR GOVT FOR ALLOWING THIS. WHAT GENERAL IN HISTORY HAS NOT HAD A WOMAN AT HIS SIDE. HE'S HUMAN .FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, DON.T DO THIS. I'LL PRAY FOR YOU GENERAL. A FRIEND IN CHATHAM ONT.

Doug # BC
said

I agree with some of what "military wife" had to say.But absolutely not all of it.Her post shows us why fraternizing with each other is NOT a good idea,even though there might be some truth to the "sex is a basic human need" part of her comments. First,it should NOT be the responsibility of the military to monitor whether or not a serving member is comitting adultery when they become involved while deployed.That is the responsibility of the individuals involved. Secondly,the miltary is all about disciple and the chain of command.That would be extremely dificult to maintain if serving members were allowed to be involved sexually.Especially on dangerous missions.High ranking members could easily abuse their position,or their subordinates could use sex to gain special priviledges.Honestly,I just don't see how it could work well.Would you send your wife,husband,or lover,on an extremely dangerous mission if you had the option to send someone else?? How fair,or how inbiased can you be when life and death decisions have to be made? I know our serving members are extra ordinary people,but they arte,in the end,human beings. If I had my way,and if it was possible,I would send any one of them anything they asked for.It is a tough job they do.And one that deserves our highest level of gratitude and respect.While I remain open to suggestions about how we can best help them while they serve us in such a selfless way,I am not convinced that the military can have wide open intimacy within it's ranks, and still maintain the discipline and command structures that are essential to keep everyone as safe as is reasonably possible.

Acroyear
said

He was THE commanding officer on scene...it's not much different than the boss at an office making passes at his employee's. In the civilian world that is called sexual harassment. It's not that they were consenting adults...otherwise there would rape charges. Any commander, male or female, that high up the food chain is doing something seriously wrong and seriously bad for moral in sleeping with a junior officer in a combat zone...it CAN have repercussions on the men and women he commands. There are reasons beyond Victorian morality for these rules in a combat zone. Besides...the really sad part of this is that if the allegations are true, he tossed his whole military career away for a roll in the hay...that is so sad it's pathetic.

James (AB)
said

The dumbest rule I have ever heard - come on sign up and lets us take you away from home for a year or more but dont you dare have sex or we will imprison you for mis-conduct - a real good recruitment tactic. Is this an army of 2010 or 1010. I wonder if the idiot that formulated this rule goes home and lives in a "closet". Wake up - even bee's do it.

TEA in Sask
said

Good...it's totally unacceptable behaviour for a superior in any profession...

Carl
said

If these allegations prove true, then they will show B Gen Menard to be unethical and reckless with the moral and effectiveness of the troops under his command.

military wife in NB
said

It's one thing to be consenting adults, another to commit adultery. He's supposed to be setting the example...if he can't even follow the rules, why should the rest of those he's commanding follow them? I think deployed members should have the choice of whether or not they want to fraternize with each other, as long as it is not adultery or cheating on your significant other. When my husband was deployed to Afghanistan, he said the other coalition troops were given condoms. If you don't give them that outlet, they will find a way. Sex is a basic human need.

Jim in Ottawa
said

This is the right decision on behalf of the Forces. Those under the command of the Brig.-Gen. need to have confidence in his judgment, particularly in times of war where their very lives are at stake.

JB in Ontario
said

That seems a little severe. It does take two to Tango. After a lengthy military service, serving Canada and that is it??I know rules are there for a reason, but there should be some flexibility. Glad he's not sent off to Siberia!

LAC
said

These people are human beings. Even married couples are not allowed...come on. These members should be commended for their service not reprimanded for this. Silly rules for sure.

Phil from Toronto
said

come on this things happens all the time. White house, parliment, Armed forces are no expection. Spare the pain to the Generals wife and children. He has serveed Canada well in Afganistan. Remember it takes 2 .Please throw out the charges. consenting adults . Are we in ta Islamic republic.

donnie
said

Make love not war...they should be given medals.