Conduct Case MPCC‑2006‑024 Summary

This complaint arose following a search of the complainant’s residence on June 13, 2003, which was conducted by members of the local municipal police, the RCMP and the CFNIS. This search resulted in the seizure of a significant number of marijuana plants and a quantity of dried marijuana. The complainant was a civilian contractor who worked on local military base but resided off-base. Both the complainant and his spouse were arrested by the RCMP for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). The CFNIS informed the base Provost Marshal (who is also the security officer) of the charges and, as a result, the complainant lost the necessary security clearance for his work on the base and was then laid-off by his employer.

On March 10, 2004, the complainant made an initial complaint to the Deputy Provost Marshal Professional Standards (DPM PS), alleging that CFNIS members do not have the authority or jurisdiction to be involved in a civilian police criminal drug investigation of a civilian contractor who was living off DND property in a private residence. He further alleged that neither the Officer Commanding the CFNIS detachment, nor the CFNIS investigator had any authority or jurisdiction to inform the chain of command of the results of a police drug investigation of a civilian. It was further alleged that the then Officer Commanding the CFNIS detachment improperly reported that the complainant was “trafficking” in marijuana. In the complainant’s view, the improper and unauthorized involvement of members of CFNIS and members of the Military Police from the local military base in a police investigation of a civilian led to the complainant’s loss of employment.

Following a preliminary review of the complaint, the DPM PS determined that no investigation would be ordered. In accordance with subsection 250.31(1) of the National Defence Act (NDA), on June 10, 2004, the complainant requested a review by the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission). On July 27, 2005 the Commission recommended that the complaint be investigated under Part IV of the NDA, which the DPM PS accepted.

On March 20, 2006, after having conducted an investigation into the allegations, the DPM PS advised the complainant that none of his allegations were substantiated. On July 14, 2006, the complainant requested a review by the Commission of the disposition of his complaint by the DPM PS, pursuant to subsection 250.31(1) of the NDA.

After a review of all documents received from the CFPM and interviews conducted by MPCC investigators, the Commission determined that the CFNIS investigators and the local Military Police Detachment had the authority, jurisdiction and duty to be involved in a civilian police investigation. The Commission also determined that the Officer Commanding the CFNIS Detachment and the investigator had the authority and duty to inform the base Provost Marshal. As such, the Commission found that the complaint was not founded.

Date modified: