Conduct Case MPCC‑2001‑054 Summary

Facts and Complaint

The complainant alleged that two Military Police members came to his place of residence for the purpose of serving him with a legal document. He claimed that they attempted to badger him into signing for it in front of several civilian witnesses, and that one of the Military Police members failed to identify himself, or show his badge or identification card.

Decision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

An investigation, launched by the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards, found two different versions of the events. Other than the evidence of the two members and that of the complainant, there were no other available independent witnesses to support the complainant's allegations (the complainant refused to disclose their identities). It was therefore reasonable to conclude that the Military Police members acted properly and in accordance with established Military Police policies.

The complainant asked the Military Police Complaints Commission (“Complaints Commission”) to review his case.

Findings of the Chairperson of the Complaints Commission

In his correspondence with the Complaints Commission, the complainant further added that he was dissatisfied with the Professional Standards investigation findings and suggested that the Military Police members be given a polygraph test in order to establish who was telling the truth. He also expressed his concern about not having been contacted by the investigator.

A- Misconduct by the Military Police members

In absence of credible, independent evidence, the Chairperson could not decide in the complainant's favour. Furthermore, the complainant's failure to provide the Complaints Commission with the names of the alleged independent witnesses weakened his credibility. There was no evidence to support misconduct on the part of the two Military Police members involved.

B- Use of a Polygraph Test

In light of the inherent frailities of polygraph examinations and numerous Supreme Court of Canada judgments on the issue of admissibility of polygraph evidence, the Chairperson concluded that the polygraph has no place in the judicial process where it is used as a tool to determine or to test credibility.

C- The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards Investigation

As for the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards investigation, the complainant's allegation that the investigator did not contact him was not related to this complaint, but to another investigation involving the complainant. The Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards investigation in this instance was methodical, professional and conducted in a very competent manner.

Consequently, the Chairperson concurred with the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards findings.

Chairperson's Reply following the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Notice of Action

No further findings or recommendations were added since the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal accepted all the findings made by the Chairperson.

Date modified: