Conduct Case MPCC‑2012‑045 and MPCC‑2012‑047 Summary

Facts and Complaint

The complainant alleged that the subject member obtained the complainant’s medical leave pass, contacted the complainant’s doctor and obtained personal medical information. A second complaint alleged that the officer to whom the first complaint was submitted purposely did not forward that complaint to Professional Standards for action.

Decision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

The Professional Standards review of the complaint determined that the subject member was performing an administrative function as a supervisor and therefore did not breach military police policies or the Professional Code of Conduct when he obtained the medical and other information about the complainant. The DPM PS also concluded that it was not necessary to investigate the second complaint, as it was found that the officer had indeed forwarded the complaint to the appropriate persons.

Findings and Recommendations of the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission

Upon review of the documentation, the Complaints Commission found that the subject was acting under the direction of a superior when he obtained the medical information. However, the conduct complained of was performed as an administrative function rather than a “policing duty or function” and is therefore not a conduct complaint within the meaning of section 250.18 of the National Defence Act. The Chair noted that it is important to guide complainants to appropriate forms of redress and in this instance the complainant should have been directed to the either the grievance system or the Ombudsman for resolution of the complaint.

The Complaints Commission’s review of the second complaint found that the complaint was forwarded by email and the decision was taken that it was not within the mandate of Professional Standards. However, an email informing the complainant of that decision was not forwarded because the complainant was on sick leave with “no contact” instructions. The complainant made enquiries about the status of his complaint and as a result, it was discovered that the complainant had not been informed of the decision regarding his initial complaint. Ultimately, an official written response was sent to the complainant and, as part of a new approach by the DPM PS, a copy was sent to the Commission. The Chair noted that he was pleased with this new approach, which provides greater transparency by keeping the parties better informed and facilitates the intended oversight role of the Commission.