Conduct Case MPCC‑2011‑020 Summary

On May 3, 2010, the complainant attended the MP Section at a military station where he worked to submit a complaint against certain members of his chain of command. In the course of his interview with the MPs and his statement to them, the complainant accused his supervisor of breaching his rights under the Privacy Act by disclosing his personal information to an outside entity. According to the complainant, the relevant episode occurred as follows:

On February 25, 2010 during a meeting with his supervisor, the complainant was asked if he was still working at his civilian job. The complainant replied that he was not and was instead receiving disability benefits from an insurance company. Subsequently, on March 1, 2010, the complainant was contacted by an agent of the insurance company and advised that she had been informed by the complainant’s supervisor that he was working 2‑3 days per month with the CF. The complainant concluded that his supervisor had contacted the insurance company following their meeting.

The complainant’s statement to the MPs also alleged that his supervisor may have improperly transmitted “Protected B” or “Confidential” information about him via his DND email without first having it encrypted. He also raised concerns about his supervisor having described administrative action taken against him as “reprimand”, rather than counselling or a verbal recorded warning.

The MP investigation concluded that the accusations made were deemed frivolous and vexatious and would not be investigated. All documentation provided as well as the statement from the complainant was scanned into the MP investigation, called the General Occurrence or GO file.

According to the complainant, after not hearing anything from the MPs, he decided to file a conduct complaint. Pursuant to NDA subsection 250.26(1) the Commission referred the complaint to the CFPM. After conducting a review of the complaint, the Deputy Commander CF MP Group determined that no further action would be taken in respect of the complaint.

The complainant requested a review of his conduct complaint.

After thoroughly reviewing the file and speaking with the complainant, the Commission wrote to the Deputy Commander raising concerns with the Deputy Commander’s reasons for not investigating the complaint. The Commission recommended that the Deputy Commander CF MP Group review his disposition of the complaint.

Following a meeting between the CFPM and Commission representatives, the Commission was advised that the Deputy Commander would reconsider his conclusion regarding the complainant having been advised of the status of the MP investigation into his allegations concerning his supervisor. The Deputy Commander reported that, although no record appears to have been made of the conversation, the recollection of the senior MP subject of the complaint (who had since retired from the CF) was that he did speak with the complainant by telephone to advise him of the disposition of his complaint against his supervisor. The Deputy Commander also advised the complainant that a Letter of Observation had been sent to the relevant MP unit chain of command asking that the junior MP subject (who was still serving) be reminded of the importance of detailed note-taking.

The complainant did not request a further review of his complaint by the Commission.

Date modified: