Conduct Case MPCC‑2014‑016 Summary

The complainant alleged that her former partner deliberately infected her with the Hepatitis C (Hep C) virus during sexual activity. She discovered she was Hep C positive through a blood test. Her former partner did not himself have Hep C. However, it was her contention that her former partner, who worked in the medical field, transmitted the virus to her during intercourse. The complainant also alleged that her former partner had removed records from her CF medical file, and that through psychological abuse, he tried to provoke her to commit suicide. She considered that his motive was to benefit financially from her death through her CF benefits.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) investigated the complaint and determined that there was no basis to proceed with charges against the complainant’s former partner. The lead CFNIS investigator debriefed the complainant on the results of their investigation during a video-recorded meeting.

As a result of being dissatisfied with the debriefing and the thoroughness of the investigation, the complainant filed a conduct complaint against the lead CFNIS investigator. More particularly, the complainant alleged that the investigation and debriefing suffered from the investigator having incorrect factual and medical information; failing to consult with a medical expert (other than the subject of the investigation); ignoring the complainant’s concerns about her current safety vis-à-vis her former partner; failing to interview witnesses suggested by the complainant; and failing to interview her psychologist because the CFNIS did not want to pay the psychologist for her time.

The Deputy Commander, CF MP Gp, investigated the complaint and determined the allegation of misconduct was not substantiated. The complainant requested a review of her complaint by the MPCC pursuant to section 250.31 of the NDA.

The MPCC concluded that the complainant’s conduct complaint allegations were unsubstantiated. The purpose of the investigative debrief to the complainant by the CFNIS investigator was to explain to her the results of the investigation and reasons for not proceeding with the laying of charges. It was not to provide medical and scientific details about the Hep C virus. It was clear from the available factual and medical information that the complainant was most likely infected at an earlier time and in a different manner than what she was alleging and that the available information provided no basis to conclude that the complainant’s former partner had access to Hep C tainted blood during the relevant time period.

For the foregoing reasons as well, it was reasonable for the CFNIS not to conduct interviews with the witnesses suggested by the complaint or with her psychologist. Pertinent reports from these individuals were already contained in the complainant’s medical records provided to the CFNIS, and any additional information these witnesses may have had regarding the specific criminal allegations of the complainant against her former partner would only be, at best, second-hand information given to them by the complainant.

Finally, a review of the video-recorded debrief meeting between the complainant and the CFNIS investigator indicated that, though perhaps nervous, the investigator did not show impatience toward the complainant. Moreover, the recording shows that the investigator did not ignore the complainant’s expressed concerns for her safety vis-à-vis her former partner. Rather, based on the investigation and in particular her interview with the former partner, the investigator simply did not agree with the complainant that there was reason for such concerns. Nonetheless, the investigator still took some precautions by notifying the MP at the former partner’s current location of the situation.

In response to the MPCC’s report, the CFPM agreed with the MPCC’s findings.

Date modified: