Sex and limitations periods

[corpsjazz]

Any contact of a sexual nature between a person in a position of ascendancy and a subordinate is not consensual. It is an assault. Profs, teachers, lawyers, cops, coaches,  doctors, etc. cannot risk a sexual relationship of any sort with someone who is a minor or a subordinate unless they want to be charged and sued. Some jurisdictions have yet to recognize that non-consensual sexual contact is under reported for psychological, monetary and other reasons, which also often relate to the power imbalance.

The same rules apply when physical power or presence is used to obtain contact for a sexual purpose.

If you were a victim of any such treatment and any of it happened when your corps was travelling in Canada, you may still have a right to redress.  In Canada, there is no limitation period that prevents the victim of sexual assault from suing.

I invite those American victims who are unable to get redress in their own country to consider contacting a Canadian law firm that does class action cases.  This can be done directly or through your American attorney.

The perpetrator, the corps, the corps director, corps management and the governing body should all be added as defendants. "Corporate" defendants are more likely to have assets and insurance. Those corporate defendants should be found responsible for the acts and omissions of their underlings, as well as their own negligence in failing to protect the victim(s) by implementing safeguards.

Canada has a complicated cap on damages for pain and suffering (just under $300K USD at present).  All other reasonable losses are fully compensated.

Collection of Canadian judgments in US courts fall under various reciprocal enforcement of judgments laws. You would need to consult with your US attorney on collection.

Hope this helps, even if it is only one person.

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by corpsjazz

[HockeyDad]

So if your spouse works for you, your “sexual relations” are, by your definition, assault?

[corpsjazz]

"So if your spouse works for you, your “sexual relations” are, by your definition, assault? " 

It could be. It could also be consensual. Facts determine the result.

My post is a simplified statement of the applicable law. It is not "my" definition.

[HockeyDad]

4 minutes ago, corpsjazz said:

"So if your spouse works for you, your “sexual relations” are, by your definition, assault? " 

It could be. It could also be consensual. Facts determine the result.

My post is a simplified statement of the applicable law. It is not "my" definition.

Well, you didn’t identify it as taken from an applicable law. Nor do you state where this law is applicable, though I infer somewhere in Canada or perhaps it’s a federal law applying throughout all of Canada. 

[Sideways]

6 minutes ago, corpsjazz said:

"So if your spouse works for you, your “sexual relations” are, by your definition, assault? " 

It could be. It could also be consensual. Facts determine the result.

My post is a simplified statement of the applicable law. It is not "my" definition.

Fact facts or alternative facts?

[Stu]

4 hours ago, corpsjazz said:

Any contact of a sexual nature between a person in a position of ascendancy and a subordinate is not consensual. It is an assault. Profs, teachers, lawyers, cops, coaches,  doctors, etc. cannot risk a sexual relationship of any sort with someone who is a minor or a subordinate unless they want to be charged and sued.

Ummm..... Your opening statement is straight forward, unbending, with no equivication or follow-up exception paragraph whatsoever. You wrote that any sexual contact of any kind by a supierior with a subordinate is defined as non-consent assault. Any. Period. Thus HockeyDad is correct in understanding your posting that if someone is a Caption Head and has a spouse working for them, by definition, that spouse cannot consent and therefore it would be committing a non-consent sexual assault if they showed any affection toward each other.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Stu

[BRASSO]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Ummm..... Your opening statement is straight forward, unbending, with no equivication or follow-up exception paragraph whatsoever. You wrote that any sexual contact of any kind by a supierior with a subordinate is defined as non-consent assault. Any. Period. Thus HockeyDad is correct in understanding your posting that if someone is a Caption Head and has a spouse working for them, by definition, that spouse cannot consent and therefore it would be committing a non-consent sexual assault if they showed any affection toward each other.

I suppose if one is splitting hairs on perhaps the imprecise verbiage used here by the new poster to DCP, the vets on here from DCP like Stu and HockeyDad are indeed accurate from a technical standpoint. Although, if we are to be THAT technical with the verbiage utilized, it is likewise assumed that spouses are neither " superiors", nor are they " subordinates " to one another if we are using these terms either. Before the Law, both spouses are considered equal, so any attempt to equate a spouse to spouse relationship to that of a Corps Caption Head sexual overtures as the superior to a youthful underling ( clearly a " subordinate " ) is a bit of a stretch, as they are entirely unlike spouse to spouse relationships, particularly when it comes to matters of sexual relations. So Yes, the new OP's verbiage was a bit imprecise here to perhaps invoke such a dissimilar power structure scenario.  But I don't imagine most people reading this are going to conclude that he was referring to spouses here when he utilized the descriptives terms of  sexual assaults by" superiors "  ( ie caption heads ) over their " subordinates " ( marchers ) and what legal recourse potential victims of such might have perhaps legally available to them in Canada.

Edited March 4, 2019 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

10 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

I suppose if one is splitting hairs on perhaps the imprecise verbiage used here by the new poster to DCP, the vets on here from DCP like Stu and HockeyDad are indeed accurate from a technical standpoint. Although, if we are to be THAT technical with the verbiage utilized, it is likewise assumed that spouses are neither " superiors", nor are they " subordinates " to one another if we are using these terms either. Before the Law, both spouses are considered equal, so any attempt to equate a spouse to spouse relationship to that of a Corps Caption Head sexual overtures as the superior to a youthful underling ( clearly a " subordinate " ) is a bit of a stretch, as they are entirely unlike spouse to spouse relationships, particularly when it comes to matters of sexual relations. So Yes, the new OP's verbiage was a bit imprecise here to perhaps invoke such a dissimilar power structure scenario.  But I don't imagine most people reading this are going to conclude that he was referring to spouses here when he utilized the descriptives terms of  sexual assaults by" superiors "  ( ie caption heads ) over their " subordinates " ( marchers ) and what legal recourse potential victims of such might have perhaps legally available to them in Canada.

come on man you've been here long enough to participles will be parsed to their molecular endpoint

[BRASSO]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

come on man you've been here long enough to participles will be parsed to their molecular endpoint

 True.. lol.. I'm pretty sure as well that if you caste yourself  as the" superior" and involved in an " ascendancy " in your spousal relationship over your " subordinate " spouse, you would in no short order become a permanent member of the Couchmen, downstairs, and in your den. So I'm pretty sure the new poster here was not referring to spouses here, in his imprecise wording. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by BRASSO

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

I suppose if one is splitting hairs on perhaps the imprecise verbiage used here by the new poster to DCP, the vets on here from DCP like Stu and HockeyDad are indeed accurate from a technical standpoint. Although, if we are to be THAT technical with the verbiage utilized, it is likewise assumed that spouses are neither " superiors", nor are they " subordinates " to one another if we are using these terms either. Before the Law, both spouses are considered equal, so any attempt to equate a spouse to spouse relationship to that of a Corps Caption Head sexual overtures as the superior to a youthful underling ( clearly a " subordinate " ) is a bit of a stretch, as they are entirely unlike spouse to spouse relationships, particularly when it comes to matters of sexual relations. So Yes, the new OP's verbiage was a bit imprecise here to perhaps invoke such a dissimilar power structure scenario.  But I don't imagine most people reading this are going to conclude that he was referring to spouses here when he utilized the descriptives terms of  sexual assaults by" superiors "  ( ie caption heads ) over their " subordinates " ( marchers ) and what legal recourse potential victims of such might have perhaps legally available to them in Canada.

 

27 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

come on man you've been here long enough to participles will be parsed to their molecular endpoint

I'm an independent contractor. I write music at home, and I travel to go teach. I use my personal car and my personal house for business. Although business function for both is for a short amount of time per week, at no time at all can anybody smoke in my personal house or my personal car; even on personal time. Why? Because of the precise letter of the law. In my city it is illegal for anybody to smoke in a building or vehicle used for business (at any time). There is no leeway or exemption for personal property or personal time. So scoff and make fun all you want, but the government is becoming that intrusive to the precise letter of the law.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Stu