Conduct Case MPCC‑2012‑020 Summary

On November 17, 2011, the complainant wrote to the Commanding Officer (CO) of CFNIS seeking a criminal/service discipline investigation into allegations of wrongdoing against members of his former CF chain of command and others, including military police members, at the base where he worked in 2006–2008. The complainant wrote a further letter dated November 29, 2011, to the CO CFNIS inquiring whether the CFNIS had conducted any previous investigations into certain matters which the complainant alleges formed at least part of the basis of his 2007 release.

The then Deputy CO CFNIS replied on December 22, 2011 advising that after review of the correspondence received, it was determined that the complainant’s allegations would be not subject of a CFNIS investigation as they fell outside of the unit’s mandate.

On May 16, 2012, the Commission received a conduct complaint from the complainant regarding the CFNIS response to his allegations, which was forwarded to the CF Provost Marshal (CFPM) in accordance with NDA subsection 250.21(2).

Oh behalf of the CFPM, the Deputy Commander issued a letter of disposition of the complaint on August 14, 2012, stating that, after an extensive review of all relevant documentation, he concluded the CFNIS decision was correct. He further noted the complainant’s allegations to the CFNIS had already been primarily addressed in a previous MP Professional Standards investigation and in the related review by the Commission (MPCC‑2010‑012). The Deputy Commander concluded that the complaint regarding the CFNIS decision of December 22, 2011 was “frivolous and vexatious” in nature and would not be investigated pursuant to NDA paragraph 250.28(2)(a).

On August 17, 2012, the complainant wrote to the Commission requesting a review of his complaint.

After an extensive review of the MP files and correspondence received from the complainant, the Commission determined it was reasonable for the CFNIS to decline to investigate the complainant’s allegations. The Commission also considered it was reasonable for the Deputy Commander to decline to investigate the complainant’s conduct complaint under NDA subsection 250.28(2). The Commission accepts that this complaint could be construed as being “frivolous and vexatious” in nature within the meaning of NDA paragraph 250.28(2)(a). The Commission notes it could well fall within the category of complaints exempt from the requirement to investigate set out in paragraph (b) of the same subsection: matters better suited to another statutory process.

It was apparent to the Commission that the allegations the complainant sought to raise with the CFNIS all pertained to the circumstances surrounding his involuntary release from the CF in 2007. In the Commission’s view, such matters are more properly suited for the CF Grievance process, the DND/CF Ombudsman and/or civil courts, rather than the police. The mere fact that impugned actions or decisions can theoretically be characterized in terms of criminal or CF Code of Service Discipline liability does not suffice to trigger MPs’ duty to investigate.

Date modified: