Conduct Case MPCC‑2013‑021 Summary

On July 13, 2013, the complainant, himself a Military Police (MP) member at the time, made a number of conduct and interference complaints with the Military Police Complaints Commission (the Commission). The complaints related to the actions of a Warrant Officer (WO) and raised several matters related to the general and daily operations at the MP Detachment.

The allegations in this specific complaint related to a number of incidents involving the WO, alleged to have occurred between April 2012 and June or July 2013.

The complainant alleged the WO engaged in inappropriate conduct and put himself in conflict of interest situations. The complainant alleged that, as a result of financial problems he was having, the WO: asked a number of his subordinates to live with him in order to help him pay his rent; bought two additional private motor vehicles and rented them out to members of other units; asked two of his subordinate MP patrolmen to lend him money (which they did); and took a second job delivering food. Furthermore, the complainant alleged the WO did all the foregoing without prior authorization from his chain of command. It was also alleged that, in the course of his secondary employment, the WO observed certain criminal incidents, which he either did not report, or delayed reporting, in order to conceal his secondary employment from his chain of command.

Having reviewed this complaint, the Commission has determined it does not fall within the statutory definition of conduct complaints this Commission can review.

In this case, while the WO was an MP member at the time of the alleged events, the conduct at issue in this complaint did not relate to the exercise of the policing duties or functions listed in the legislation. If the WO did act as alleged in the complaint (and this has not been determined one way or another by the Commission), it is clear these actions were not part of any policing duties or functions, and did not involve the WO putting himself on duty or invoking his status or responsibilities as an MP member. To the extent the alleged conduct raised concerns, these relate to internal workplace issues but not to the actual performance of policing duties.

Consequently, the Commission agrees with the determination of the Deputy Commander that no investigation is necessary in this case, as the complaint is not a valid conduct complaint within the meaning of National Defence Act (NDA) Part IV.

Date modified: