Conduct Case MPCC‑2013‑013 Summary

This complaint arose from events that occurred on April 15, 2013 and April 16, 2013. The complainant is a former member of the CF who was released in 2005. During 2004, he had frequent dealings with the Military Police (MP) at the local base, where he had been arrested and charged a number of times.

On April 15, 2013 the complainant, who resides near the base, received a phone call at approximately 15:18 hrs. The caller said nothing and then hung up after 10 seconds. The call display showed a specific name with a specific telephone number. The complainant did an internet search of the name and found that there was an MP with that name (the subject) in the city where the complainant resided. The complainant was then concerned because he recalled that when he had been arrested in 2004 the desk clerk in the cell area where he was held had the same name.

The next day, April 16, 2013, the complainant saw a platoon of soldiers in full combat gear marching down his residential street when one of the soldiers broke ranks and went directly toward the complainant’s residence. The soldier allegedly went specifically to the area where the garbage normally would be discarded on garbage day, although the complainant had not yet put his garbage out at the time. Subsequently, a dark colored van pulled up, bearing DND plates. The soldier jumped in and the vehicle vacated the area. The complainant believes the soldier was intending to look through his garbage in order to intimidate him.

On the same date, April 16, 2013, the complainant was on the internet in a military chat group, when he noticed that someone had been using his pseudonym in order to post personal information about him such as where he had eaten, what he had been doing and comments concerning his child support issues.

The complainant believed these incidents were too closely related to be mere coincidence and therefore believed he was being “stalked” or harassed by the subject MP.

Following its review and investigation of the complaint, the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission) concluded all three allegations were not substantiated. The Commission investigation demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that, while the phone call had been made, it was made by a civilian who had the same name as the subject Military Police (MP) member. This finding tended to undermine the complainant’s remaining allegations as well. With respect to the marching incident, the Commission found no record of such an exercise being conducted at that time. Finally, the Commission could find no evidence to support the allegation that the subject MP had the complainant’s online identity in respect of the military chat-group in question.

Date modified: