Conduct Case MPCC‑2012‑030 Summary

The complainant sent copies of a letter dated July 5, 2012 to various offices of the Canadian Forces (CF) as well as the Commission. The letter generally related to the complainant’s release from the CF in 2006 on medical grounds, but contained wide-ranging allegations against government officials. (In terms of the MP-related allegations in this letter, the Commission denied the complainant’s request for an extension of the one year limitation period specified by section 250.2 of the NDA.)

As a result of receipt of the complainant’s letter by the CF, two Corporals of the local Military Police (MP) Unit were assigned to look into the matter. Their initial research on provincial police databases indicated that the complainant required long term medical care and was flagged as a high risk for violence. On July 12, 2012, the two Corporals attended the complainant’s residence to follow up on the letter, and at the request of the complainant, met with him in a park near his residence.

After a period of discussion with the complainant, the two Corporals determined the complainant was not a threat to himself or others, and ended the meeting.

On July 13, 2012, in a new letter to the Commission the complainant made allegations against the two Corporals concerning what he said was his illegal and forced detention at a Park on July 12, 2012. The Commission forwarded the letter to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) for investigation in the first instance.

On July 20, 2012, the CFPM’s delegate for MP Professional Standards, the Deputy Commander CF MP Group, wrote to the complainant to advise his review of the complaint concerning his illegal and forced detention had led to a determination that no investigation or further action be undertaken in respect of this complaint, as he deemed the complaint to be frivolous.

The complainant requested a review by the Commission in a letter dated October 28, 2012.

Having reviewed the relevant MP file and conducted interviews with the relevant witnesses, the Commission was satisfied the two Corporals acted appropriately in meeting with the complainant on July 12, 2012. The complainant’s participation in the meeting appears to have been informed and voluntary and took place in public. No physical contact was made to keep him at the meeting, nor does there appear to have been any psychological coercion, including no evidence of threats of arrest or detention made by the MPs.

The Commission confirmed the Deputy Commander’s determination not to pursue this complaint further. While the Deputy Commander chose to rely upon subsection 250.28(2)(a) of the NDA finding that “the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”, it is the opinion of the Commission that subsection 250.28(2)(c) of NDA may have been a more appropriate statutory section to use in the circumstances: “having regard to all the circumstances, investigation or further investigation is not necessary or reasonably practicable.”

Date modified: