2019 Sexual Misconduct Incident Tracking Report

Published August 2019
Data presented in report accessed May 2019

Background

Prior to the introduction of Operation HONOUR in 2015, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) did not have a dedicated central database in which to record all cases of sexual misconduct. FRAGO 001 to the Chief of Defence Staff Operation Order for Operation HONOUR (dated 18 March 2016) directed that, starting on 1 April 2016, all Level 1 organizations report incidents of sexual misconduct to the CAF Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct (CSRT-SM) (now called the Directorate Professional Military Conduct - Operation HONOUR [DPMC-OpH]) for coalition in a master database.

In January 2018, the Operation HONOUR Tracking and Analysis System (OPHTAS) was created for use by the chain of command as a dedicated means of recording, tracking and conducting trend analysis of incidents of sexual misconduct. The system reached its initial operating capability in October 2018, and is anticipated to reach full operating capability in December 2019.

OPHTAS is designed to record and track incidents of sexual misconduct reported to the chain of command. Any incident reported to the chain of command on or after 1 April 2016 can be reported in OPHTAS, regardless of when it occurred. Prior to 1 April 2019, OPHTAS was only used to record incidents that involved at least one CAF member as a complainant or respondent. Effective 1 April 2019, incidents of sexual misconduct involving only DND civilians could also be recorded.

OPHTAS only records incidents reported by or to the chain of command. Incidents may not be reported to the chain of command for a variety of reasons, such as when an affected person discloses an incident to the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC) and requests that no formal report or investigation be initiated. The chain of command may also not receive a report when an affected person seeks care from either the Canadian Forces Health Services or a civilian health care provider, both of which will respect patient confidentiality.

This report includes all available OPHTAS data recorded since 1 April 2016 and is reported by fiscal year (1 April to 31 March). Some datasets are incomplete for a variety of reasons, for example details may not have been disclosed or known at the time, or the data has yet to be entered. OPHTAS is continuously audited and updated to ensure that data is as complete as possible. In addition, it is important to note that incidents can be reported at any time. As a result, the data in this report may be different from data in previous reports. Because of the dynamic nature of OPHTAS data, the date that the data was accessed for this report is included in all figures and tables.

This report was developed to provide the CAF with a snapshot of the data currently available in OPHTAS and some key observations. Further analysis of the data will be conducted to inform and focus our efforts to address sexual misconduct.

Part 1 – Reporting Trends by Date

Incidents Reported to Chain of Command by Fiscal Year

The chain of command is required to enter all incidents of sexual misconduct into OPHTAS within 48 hours of the incident being reported. Incidents reported to the chain of command can be incidents that occurred recently or that occurred at any time in the past (see the “Incident Reporting Compared with Occurrence” section below). Table 1 presents the number of incidents reported by month for the last three fiscal years. Figure 1 plots the total number of reports received per fiscal quarter over time. The number of reports submitted to the chain of command has decreased over the past three years.

Table 1. Incidents reported by month and fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
FY 2016–17	49	35	37	28	23	47	31	52	48	30	39	42	461
FY 2017–18	29	34	48	44	37	31	35	32	40	21	37	25	413
FY 2018–19	17	30	22	23	26	33	38	34	16	27	19	17	302

Figure 1. Reporting totals by fiscal quarter and year

Description of Graph

The graph plots the total number of reports received by the chain of command per fiscal quarter over time. The total number of reports received varies from a high of 131 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016-2017 to a low of 63 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018-2019. There are two lines on the graph. One line connects the data points for each quarter. An additional line indicates that the trend over all three fiscal years is five fewer reports every quarter.

Who Reported Incidents to the Chain of Command by Fiscal Year

Cases in OPHTAS include information on who reported the incidesnt to the chain of command. This information is presented in Table 2. Note that MP is the Military Police and CFNIS is the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, a part of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal organization.

Table 2. Who reported incidents to the chain of command by fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
Complainant	57.3%	54.2%	55.0%
Supervisor	9.3%	9.2%	16.2%
Bystander	14.8%	19.9%	15.2%
Respondent	0.2%	1.7%	5.3%
MP/CFNIS/Civilian Police	1.5%	1.0%	4.0%
Civilian	0.2%	0.7%	4.0%
Unknown	16.7%	13.3%	0.3%

Key observations:

• Over all three fiscal years, more than half of the cases were reported by the complainant (the person who was the target of the incident).
• A large proportion of cases are reported by bystanders (witnesses to the incident) and by supervisors, with the proportion of supervisors increasing in fiscal year 2018–2019.
• There was only one case in which the source reporting the incident is “unknown” in the fiscal year 2018–2019 results.

 

Incident Reporting Compared with Incident Occurrence

Sexual misconduct incidents can be reported to the chain of command at any time. The incidents may have occurred recently or any time in the past. Table 3 shows aggregated data for the fiscal year reports were received and the fiscal year the incidents occurred. The shaded cells highlight when the incident is reported in the same fiscal year as it occurs.

Table 3. Fiscal year of incident occurrence compared with the number of incidents reported each fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Fiscal year incident occurred	Incident reports by year			Total
	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
Before FY 2015–2016	28	18	14	60
During FY 2015–2016	29	7	3	39
During FY 2016–2017	404	47	2	453
During FY 2017–2018		341	27	368
During FY 2018–2019			256	256
Total	461	413	302	1176

Key observations:

• The majority of incidents are reported in the fiscal year that they occurred.
• Approximately one in ten incidents occurred in the previous fiscal year (11.4% in fiscal year 2017–2018 and 8.9% in fiscal year 2018–2019).

 

Part 2 – Incident Trends by Date

Sexual Misconduct Incidents by Date of Occurrence

This part of the report presents sexual misconduct incidents that occurred in the three fiscal years that are the subject of this report. Table 4 gives a monthly breakdown of the incidents that have occurred within each fiscal year. Figure 2 plots the total number of incidents that occurred per fiscal quarter over time. Based on the data available in OPHTAS, there is a declining trend in incident occurrence.

Table 4. Incident occurrence by month and fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
FY 2016–17	52	39	34	26	20	42	45	51	49	33	34	28	453
FY 2017–18	26	39	36	40	34	32	32	33	32	17	31	17	368
FY 2018–19	17	31	24	21	30	30	32	23	12	13	18	5	256

Figure 2. Incident occurrence totals for each fiscal quarter and year

Description of Graph

The graph plots the incident occurrence totals for each fiscal quarter and year. The total number of incidents varies from a high of 155 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016-2017 to a low of 36 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018-2019. There are two lines on the graph. One line connects the data points for each quarter. An additional line indicates that the trend over all three fiscal years is six fewer reports every quarter.

Sexual Misconduct Incident Type by Date of Occurrence

OPHTAS records information about incident type according to five categories: sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour, miscellaneous incidents and other. The number of incidents for the main types of sexual misconduct incidents are reported by fiscal year in Figure 3.

The category of “Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour” includes incidents involving inappropriate language, displays of inappropriate materials, and indecent acts. This category was changed in April 2019 to reflect specific types of inappropriate behaviours that align with the current CAF definition of sexual misconduct and will not appear in future reports. The category of “Miscellaneous Incidents” includes specific types of sexual misconduct, including incidents such as child pornography and voyeurism. The category of “Other” includes cases without enough information to select a specific type of sexual misconduct defined in OPHTAS.

Figure 3. Total number of incidents for categories of sexual misconduct by fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Description of Graph

The bar graph presents the total number of incidents per fiscal year for each category of sexual misconduct. Categories of sexual misconduct incidents presented in the graph are sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour (which includes incidents involving inappropriate language, displays of inappropriate material, and indecent acts), miscellaneous incidents (which includes incidents such as child pornography and voyeurism) and other incidents (which includes cases without enough information to select a specific type of sexual misconduct). With the exception of sexual assault, all categories of sexual misconduct decreased each fiscal year. Sexual assault occurrences were lowest in fiscal year 2016-2017, highest in fiscal year 2017-2018, and at a level in-between in fiscal year 2018-2019.

Key observations:

• The number of sexual assaults that occurred in each fiscal year does not follow the same year-to-year downward trend as all other categories of sexual misconduct. Sexual assault occurrences were lowest in fiscal year 2016–2017, highest in fiscal year 2017–2018, and at a level in-between in fiscal year 2018–2019.

Detailed information about sexual assault cases is presented in the next section.

 

Part 3 – Detailed Sexual Misconduct Incident Statistics

OPHTAS records the same categories of information for all cases. This includes information on individuals who have been the target of sexual misconduct, referred to as the “complainant”, and on the individuals who are alleged to have committed the sexual misconduct, referred to as the “respondent”. Information is included on the type of sexual misconduct incident that occurred, whether or not drugs or alcohol were known to be involved in an incident, and where the incident took place.

In many cases, not all the information that can be recorded in OPHTAS is available for each incident. The chain of command enters the information that is initially reported and updates the cases as more information becomes available. In producing this report, only the data that is known is presented.

It should be noted that correspondence between the number of complainants and the number of respondents is not one to one. Information may not always available on the complainant or the respondent involved in each incident for a variety of reasons, such as one of the individuals involved in the complaint is a non-DND civilian, the identity of a respondent is unknown, or identifying information is not entered in OPHTAS (e.x., incidents involving anyone under 18 years of age).

Recognizing the egregious nature of sexual assault, information recorded in OPHTAS involving sexual assault is presented separately in the next section. Sexual misconduct, other than sexual assault, will be presented following the sexual assault statistics.

 

Sexual Assault Incident Statistics

The category of sexual assault incidents includes three specific types of sexual assault: unwanted sexual touching, sexual activity unable to consent, and sexual assault using violence. There is also an “Other” category for sexual assault incidents, which is used when a sexual assault is reported but details of the type of sexual assault are not immediately available.

Complainant Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Complainant profiles for sexual assault are presented in Table 5. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 5. Complainant profiles of sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

		FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
		63 cases	114 cases	84 cases
Gender	Female	46 82.1%	66 89.2%	40 85.1%
	Male	41 17.9%	8 10.8%	7 14.9%
Rank/Status	DND Civilian	3 8.8%	2 3.8%	0 0%
	Other	18 52.9%	19 35.8%	8 16.0%
	Junior NCM	11 32.4%	27 50.9%	31 62.0%
	Senior NCM	1 2.9%	2 3.8%	1 2.0%
	Junior Officer	1 2.9%	3 5.7%	10 20.0%
	Senior Officer	0 0%	0 0%	0 0%
Component	Regular Force	23 76.7%	30 63.8%	22 52.4%
	Primary Reserve	7 23.3%	17 36.2%	20 47.6%

Key observations:

• In all three fiscal years, the majority of complainants were females (82% to 89%).
• For military complainants, in all three fiscal years the majority of complainants were Junior Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs).
• The majority of military complainants are members of the Regular Force, but this proportion gets smaller from year to year.
• There was a similar number of “Other” complainants in fiscal years 2016–2017 and 2017–2018, but the number was less than half in fiscal year 2018–2019.

 

Respondent Profile for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Respondent profiles for sexual assault incidents are presented in Table 6. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 6. Respondent profiles of sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

		FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
		63 cases	114 cases	84 cases
Gender	Female	4 6.7%	5 5.8%	0 0%
	Male	55 93.2%	81 94.2%	67 100%
Rank/Status	DND Civilian	1 3.0%	2 0%	0 0%
	Other	1 3.0%	0 0%	1 1.5%
	Junior NCM	19 57.6%	45 77.6%	45 68.2%
	Senior NCM	5 15.2%	5 8.6%	5 7.6%
	Junior Officer	5 15.2%	8 13.8%	10 15.2%
	Senior Officer	2 6.1%	0 0%	5 7.6%
Component	Regular Force	39 76.5%	54 71.1%	40 62.5%
	Primary Reserve	12 23.3%	22 19.3%	24 37.5%

Key observations:

• In all three fiscal years the majority of respondents were male (93% to 100%).
• There were very few non-military respondents and the majority of military respondents were Junior NCMs.
• The majority of military respondents were members of the Regular Force, although the proportion of Primary Reserve members increased in fiscal year 2018–2019 from previous years.

Drug and Alcohol Involvement for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Table 7 presents the data for sexual assault cases where information about alcohol or drug involvement was recorded. The numbers and percentages in Table 7 do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison. Effective 1 October 2018, aligned with the legalization of cannabis, involvement of cannabis or cannabis products is recorded separately from other drug involvement.

Table 7. Sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year involving alcohol (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
	63 cases	114 cases	84 cases
Reported alcohol involved	6 9.8%	19 25.0%	33 75.0%
Reported alcohol not involved	55 90.2%	57 75%	11 25%

Key observations:

• Alcohol was involved in the minority of cases in fiscal years 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 (10% and 25%), but was very high in fiscal year 2018-2109 (75%).
• Only one case in 2018–2019 recorded the involvement of illicit drugs.

Location for Incidents of Sexual Assault

OPHTAS case entries include information on where an incident of sexual misconduct took place. The number of incidents reported for each location category in each fiscal year is reported in Table 8.

Table 8. Locations for sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
At the Unit During Work	4 6.3%	4 3.5%	5 6.0%
While on Military Course/Training	7 11.1%	16 14%	10 11.9%
At the Mess During a Sanctioned Event	12 19.0%	8 7%	8 9.5%
In Quarters/Personal Residence	9 14.3%	31 27.2%	31 36.9%
Civilian Establishment	10 15.9%	18 15.8%	12 14.3%
While Deployed	5 7.9%	7 6.1%	2 2.4%
During a Field Exercise	3 4.8%	3 2.6%	1 1.2%
Other	13 20.6%	27 23.7%	15 17.9%

Key observations:

• Cases in the category “in quarters/personal residence” increased in every fiscal year (14.3%, 27.2%, and 36.9%) and this was the most frequent location of incidents in fiscal years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
• The second most frequent location of incidents in all three fiscal years was at a civilian establishment. Another frequent location was “while on a military course or military training.”
• The most frequent location in fiscal year 2016–2017 (19.0%) was “at the mess or during a sanctioned event,” but it was less common in subsequent fiscal years (7.0% and 9.5%).
• The least frequent locations were “at the unit during work”, “while deployed” and “during a field exercise.”

 

Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault Incident Statistics

The “sexual misconduct other than sexual assault” category includes sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour, miscellaneous incidents, and other incidents where sufficient information is not available to categorize. The data reported in this section is the total number of incidents in a fiscal year less the number of sexual assault cases in a fiscal year (FY 2016-2017: 390 incidents; FY 2017-2018: 254 incidents; FY 2018-2019: 172 incidents).

Complainant Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

The complainant profiles for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault are reported in Table 9. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 9. Complainant profiles of incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

		FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
		390 incidents	254 incidents	172 incidents
Gender	Female	252 81.8%	148 77.1%	93 75.0%
	Male	56 8.2%	44 22.9%	31 25.0%
Rank/Status	DND Civilian	34 24.1%	5 4.9%	7 5.6%
	Other	25 17.7%	22 21.4%	12 9.7%
	Junior NCM	57 40.4%	49 47.6%	73 58.9%
	Senior NCM	3 2.1%	9 8.7%	7 5.6%
	Junior Officer	12 8.5%	13 12.6%	22 17.7%
	Senior Officer	10 7.1%	5 4.9%	3 2.4%
Component	Regular Force	183 75.3%	107 65.6%	75 71.4%
	Primary Reserve	60 24.7%	56 34.4%	30 28.6%

Key observations:

• In all three fiscal years, the majority of complainants were female (77% to 82%).
• Junior NCMs were the largest proportion of military complainants in all three fiscal years.
• Regular Force members were the majority of complainants in all three fiscal years.
• DND civilians and “Other” complainants made up a significant proportion of complainants in fiscal year 2016–2017, with the number of DND civilian complainants steadily decreasing in fiscal year 2017–2018 and in fiscal year 2018–2019.
• The number of “Other” complainants also decreased in fiscal year 2018–2019.

Respondent Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

The respondent profiles for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault are reported in Table 10. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 10. Respondent profiles of incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

		FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
		390 cases	254 cases	172 cases
Gender	Female	17 5.1%	13 5.6%	9 5.9%
	Male	316 94.9%	221 94.4%	143 94.1%
Rank/Status	DND Civilian	12 9.1%	7 5.3%	2 1.3%
	Other	8 6.1%	3 2.3%	2 1.3%
	Junior NCM	61 46.2%	69 51.9%	91 60.7%
	Senior NCM	28 21.2%	26 19.5%	28 18.7%
	Junior Officer	14 10.6%	15 11.3%	24 16.0%
	Senior Officer	9 6.8%	13 9.8%	3 2.0%
Component	Regular Force	233 77.2%	152 72.0%	111 74.5%
	Primary Reserve	69 22.8%	59 28.0%	38 25.5%

Key observations:

• The majority of respondents in all three fiscal years were male (94% to 95%).
• Junior NCMs made up the largest proportion of military respondents in all three fiscal years (46% to 61%).
• There was a consistent number of Senior NCM respondents in all three fiscal years and Junior Officers in fiscal years 2016–2017 and 2017–2018, with the number of Junior Officer respondents increasing in fiscal year 2018–2019.
• The majority of respondents were Regular Force members, and this proportion was similar in all three fiscal years (72% to 77%).
• There was a noticeable number of DND civilian and “Other” respondents in fiscal year 2016–2017, although these numbers decreased from year to year.

 

Drug and Alcohol Involvement for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

Table 11 presents the information on whether or not alcohol was known to be involved in incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault. The numbers and percentages in Table 11 do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison. Effective 1 October 2018 (aligned with the legalization of cannabis), involvement of cannabis or cannabis products is recorded separately from other drug involvement.

Table 11. Incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year involving alcohol (data accessed 15 May 2019)

	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
	390 incidents	254 incidents	172 incidents
Reported alcohol involved	13 3.7%	26 11.2%	33 28.0%
Reported alcohol not involved	337 96.3%	207 88.8%	85 72.0%

Key observations:

• There was an increase year to year in the proportion of incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault in which alcohol was known to be involved (4% to 28%).
• Drug involvement was reported in one incident in fiscal year 2016–2017.

 

Location for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

OPHTAS case entries include information on where incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault took place. The number of incidents reported for each location category in each fiscal year is reported in Table 12.

Table 12. Locations for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
At the Unit During Work	106 27.2%	60 23.6%	40 26.2%
While on Military Course/Training	65 16.7%	45 17.7%	23 13.4%
At the Mess During a Sanctioned Event	43 11.0%	31 12.2%	19 11.0%
In Quarters/Personal Residence	39 10.0%	15 5.9%	26 15.1%
Civilian Establishment	30 7.7%	15 5.9%	16 9.3%
While Deployed	21 5.4%	34 13.4%	8 4.7%
During a Field Exercise	15 3.8%	8 3.1%	6 3.5%
Other	71 18.2%	46 18.1%	29 16.9%

Key observations:

• For all three fiscal years, “at the unit during work” and “while on a military course or training” were consistently common locations.
• The second most frequent location in fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 was “while on a military course or military training, while “in quarters/personal residence” was the second most common in location in 2018–2019.
• The third most frequent location in 2017–2018 was “while deployed.”
• Incidents “during a field exercise” were consistently the least common (3% to 4%). 

Part 4 – Actions Taken for Reported Incidents

Once a case is entered into OPHTAS, the chain of command is required to track and record any subsequent actions taken on the case, including administrative and/or disciplinary action, as applicable. Other organizations, including the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall, the Integrated Complaint and Conflict Management (ICCM) system, the Judge Advocate General (JAG), and Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA), also manage incidents of sexual misconduct. The information presented below is from these organizations’ annual reports. The information below is not currently directly linked to the cases in OPHTAS.

Initial Actions Taken Against the Respondent

As an initial action, personnel in positions of command, supervisors or instructors may be removed from these duties either temporarily or permanently (see Table 13).

Table 13. Personnel removed from positions of authority

		FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
Removed from command	Temporarily	0	1	1
	Permanently	2	4	4
Removed from supervisory position	Temporarily	11	6	8
	Permanently	13	4	14
Removed from instructional duties	Temporarily	6	4	3
	Permanently	6	2	4

Status of Investigations

All cases of sexual misconduct undergo some level of investigation. Any case that has the potential to constitute a service or civilian offence is referred to the Military Police (MP) for investigation by either the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service or the appropriate civilian police force, depending on the circumstances. Cases that the MP determine do not require a MP investigation can be referred back to the chain of command to be investigated, or in cases involving sexual harassment, referred to a Harassment Investigator. Table 14 reports the status of all investigations undertaken in response to reported sexual misconduct incidents.

Table 14. Status of investigations recorded in OPHTAS (data accessed 15 May 2019)

	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
Completed	278	200	87
In progress	183	213	215
Total	461	413	302

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

Information on criminal sexual offences can be found in the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) annual reports. The CFPM reports include all reported incidents that occurred on a Defence establishment or that involved a CAF member (anywhere in the world) and were investigated by the MP. The criminal sexual offences reported to the Canadian Forces Military Police are more inclusive than those recorded in OPHTAS. They include alleged offences involving CAF members, DND employees and any civilian persons on a Defence establishment at the time of the offence.

Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management

The Director General Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management Annual Report 2018 reported 31 cases of Operation HONOUR related incidents. These numbers were gathered during the initial pilot project of four Conflict and Complaint Management Services centres.

Judge Advocate General

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) reports annually to the Minister of National Defence on the administration of military justice in the Canadian Forces. The JAG Annual Reports contain statistics relating to summary trials and courts martial, including information on proceedings arising from allegations of sexual misconduct. Detailed information was provided for fiscal year 2016–2017 and fiscal year 2017–2018. The fiscal year 2018–2019 annual report will be published in the summer of 2019. Summary trial results are summarized in Table 15, and court martial results are summarized in Table 16.

Table 15. Summary trial results by fiscal year

Fiscal Year 2016–2017	Fiscal Year 2017–2018
19 Summary trials	21 summary trials
27 charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline related to sexual misconduct	26 charges of disobedience of lawful command and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline related to sexual misconduct;
22 findings of guilty; 1 charged not proceeded with, 2 not guilty findings and 2 charges stayed	18 findings of guilty; 6 findings of not guilty and 2 charges stayed
Punishments included reduction in rank, reprimands, fines ranging from $200 to $2500, and minor punishments	Punishments included fines ranging from $100 to $200 and minor punishments

Table 16. Court martial results by fiscal year

Fiscal Year 2016–2017	Fiscal Year 2017–2018
12 courts martial including a sexual misconduct related charge: behaved in a disgraceful manner, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, breach of trust and sexual assault.	20 courts martial including a sexual misconduct related charge: behaved in a disgraceful manner, ill-treated a subordinate, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, and sexual assault
10 Courts Martial found the accused guilty of a sexual misconduct related charge; 1 court martial found the accused not guilty; 1 case withdrawn	14 Courts Martial found the accused guilty of sexual misconduct related charges, 4 court martials found the accused not guilty, and 2 cases were not tried
Punishments for sexual assault included dismissal, imprisonment and reduction in rank	Punishments for sexual assault included dismissal, imprisonment and reduction in rank
Punishments for the other sexual misconduct related offences included reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimand, and fines ranging from $500 to $3000	Punishments for the other sexual misconduct related offences included reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimands and fines ranging from $200 to $2500.

Director Military Careers Administration

Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA) conducts an Administrative Review process to recommend administrative career action when the conduct of a CAF member calls into question the viability of their continued service. An Administrative Review will normally be initiated whenever DMCA receives information concerning an incident related to sexual misconduct. DMCA can recommend release or remedial measures, which include initial counselling, recorded warning, or counselling and probation.

Table 17. DMCA recommendations for sexual misconduct

	FY 2016–2017	FY 2017–2018	FY 2018–2019
Releases	16	30	37
Remedial Measures	2	18	15

 

Future Action

The CAF is committed to ensuring that OPHTAS provides information that is integral to understanding sexual misconduct in the CAF and DND. As OPHTAS matures and data continues to be entered, it will serve a much more important purpose than a repository of sexual misconduct incident records. The collation of reliable data will provide us with a pool of data essential for continual performance measurement and analysis. To that end, work is underway to fully integrate OPHTAS with all other key personnel-related and sexual misconduct incident-related databases. For example, as part of the integration, select information on Military Police investigations, such as whether an investigation is in progress or completed, and if charges have been laid, will be automatically linked with OPHTAS.

OPHTAS will also be integrated with other systems, such as the Justice Administration and Information Management System (JAIMS) for military justice outcomes and the Integrated Complaint Registration and Tracking System (ICRTS) for sexual harassment outcomes. Throughout the data integration process, checks and balances are confirmed to ensure data security is maintained and the Privacy Act is respected.

Once complete, the integration will give OPHTAS better analytical capabilities, reduce redundancies and the corresponding potential for data-entry errors, and facilitate automated data reporting to the chain of command.